 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Bonham v. City of Hamilton, CASE NO. CA2006-02-030,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BUTLER COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Land owners could not claim adverse possession against a city, whether land was used for public or proprietary purposes, because neither exception to a rule barring such claims against the state applied, nor did equitable estoppel apply as the city did not mislead the owners. The limitations period in R.C. § 2305.14 barred a deed reformation claim.
|
|||||
| Buflod v. Von Wilhendorf, LLC, CASE NO. CA2006-02-022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WARREN COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no error in the trial court's determination that it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendants pursuant to R.C. § 2307.382(A)(1). There was no ongoing business relationship as defendants' only business dealings in Ohio included three contracts entered into with the buyer, that had been initiated by the buyer.
|
|||||
| Camp-Out, Inc. v. Adkins, Court of Appeals No. WD-06-057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WOOD COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of an appeal under App. R. 11(C) was denied where a record was lacking a transcript that had been ordered by appellants pursuant to App. R. 9(B), but not prepared for inclusion in the record; the transcript was only applicable to one of four assignments of error, and that assignment would be evaluated to determine the necessity thereof.
|
|||||
| Galyean v. Greenwell, Case No. 05CA11,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment on the whistleblower claims was proper because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to plaintiffs' reasonable beliefs regarding public health or patient safety at the time of the report. Since their motivation for reporting to the management service was liability, they were not protected by R.C. § 4113.52.
|
|||||
| Guy v. Q.H.G. of Massillon, Inc., Case No. 2006CA00111,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the nurse was a member of a statutorily protected class (she was 50 years old) and she was discharged, she failed to provide evidence that she was qualified for the job as a heart catheter lab registered nurse and, thus, failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, under R.C. § 4112.02.
|
|||||
| In re M.T., CASE NUMBER 13-06-30, CASE NUMBER 13-06-31,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, SENECA COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Date of Judgment Entries
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence supported a trial court's finding that placing a mother's two children with their paternal grandmother was not in the children's best interest as there was cigarette smoke in grandmother's house, posing a risk to one of the children who had respiratory issues, and as grandmother had not shown any interest in raising her own three children.
|
|||||
| In re T.H., CASE NO. CA2006-02-021, CA2006-02-022,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLERMONT COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the juvenile to serve consecutive youth services commitments, pursuant to R.C. § 2152.01. Given the serious nature of the initial delinquent conduct of complicity to commit burglary, forgery, and theft, consecutive commitments were commensurate with his conduct.
|
|||||
| In re Tabler, Case No. 06CA30,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAWRENCE COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a juvenile failed to object to a magistrate's determination, pursuant to Juv. R. 40(D)(4)(c), the magistrate committed plain error where she failed to personally address the juvenile to ascertain that he voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently waived his rights, as required by Juv. R. 29(D).
|
|||||
| Kayatin v. Petro, C. A. No. 06CA008934,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LORAIN COUNTY, January 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a charity did not use realty bequeathed to it, it showed no abuse of discretion when a trial court let other charities share in the realty's sale proceeds or because it did not allocate more proceeds to the charity, and it was no abuse of discretion to restrict the charity's intervention, under Civ. R. 24(A)(1), to dividing the sale proceeds.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
