 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Augsbury v. Hickerson, C.A. No. 23301,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affidavits of attorney who drafted testator's last will, accountant with whom testator had discussed her finances, and testator's neighbor, taken together, established that testator was not under improper influence when she executed her will. Daughter, who filed will contest action, failed to respond with any evidence demonstrating undue influence.
|
|||||
| Barnett v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr., Case No. 2005-10233,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, January 31, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Magistrate recommended that employee's promissory estoppel claim against employer be dismissed on summary judgment because employee, who was terminated from his job, had not identified any specific promise that employer or any of its employees made to him concerning job security; thus, employee could not have reasonably relied on any such promise.
|
|||||
| Bench Signs Unlimited v. Stark Area Reg'l Transit Auth., C. A. No. 23357,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a trial court awarded a transit authority attorneys' fees while the case was on appeal, the award was void because the trial court lacked jurisdiction, and its entry was void as entering such an order was inconsistent with the appellate court's jurisdiction to reverse a grant of summary judgment on which the award of attorneys' fees was based.
|
|||||
| Caldwell v. Petersburg Stone Co., No. 2006-0184,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Hazard v. Klein, C.A. No. 23148,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Any error in admitting expert's testimony on principle of micrometastasis in medical malpractice case was not prejudicial. Expert testified that, without regard to principle, even if timely mammogram had been performed, no cancer would have been detected since patient's cancer was not detected after mammograms by several doctors three years later.
|
|||||
| Miller v. McStay, C. A. No. 23369,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Default judgment against non-appearing landlord was proper under Summit County, Ohio, Mun. Ct. R. 36, in former tenant's suit for return of a security deposit, even though Civ. R. 55(A), by its nature, did not apply to small claims cases, because Summit County, Ohio, Mun. Ct. R. 36's dispute resolution was consistent with R.C. § 1925.01 et seq.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Todd v. Felger, CASE NO. 06 CO 38,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a relator failed to show under R.C. § 703.20 that 40 percent of the electors of a village had signed petitions, seeking a special election to determine whether the village should surrender its corporate powers, relator was not entitled to summary judgment on his mandamus action.
|
|||||
| State v. Hardison, C.A. No. 23050,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The statements on the jailhouse recording were admissible because they were admissions of a party opponent, under Evid. R. 801(D)(2), and admissions by adoption of a party opponent. Defendant's silence in response to the brother's statements that he was in jail because of defendant's drugs amounted to an adoption of the truth of the statements.
|
|||||
| State v. McCloud, C. A. No. 23138,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, January 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for criminal damaging, under R.C. § 2909.06(A)(1), and assault, under R.C. § 2903.13(A), were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The evidence showed that defendant knowingly jumped through a closed screen window and hit, kicked or otherwise "beat" the victim, causing a serious injury.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
