 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| State ex rel. Bradford v. Indus. Comm'n , No. 06AP-125,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court adopted a magistrate's recommendation to deny an employee's writ of mandamus request with respect to the denial by the Industrial Commission of Ohio of the employee's request for a scheduled-loss award for an arm under R.C. § 4123.57(B), as some evidence supported the decision that he retained significant use of his elbow and hand.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Harner v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 06AP-30,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Adoption of a magistrate's decision to deny an employee's mandamus action, seeking to require the Industrial Commission of Ohio to change its decision to one awarding him permanent total disability compensation, was proper, as there was some evidence to support the finding that the employee was capable of light sedentary work.
|
|||||
| State v. Antos, No. 88091,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's actions substantially complied with the requirements set forth in R.C. § 2941.401, when he sent a letter to the appropriate prosecutor's office and court, notifying them of his location of imprisonment and demanding a final disposition, the municipal court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the OMVI charge against him.
|
|||||
| State v. Arrambide, No. 87423,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court engaged in an extensive inquiry with defendant under Crim. R. 11(C)(2) during a change of plea hearing, there were 11 pretrials which culminated in defendant's change of plea, and he indicated that he was satisfied with his counsel's representation, there was no evidence that he was unaware of the nature of the charges against him.
|
|||||
| State v. Barnick, No. 87960,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: City's amendment of a charge in an indictment, changing charge from criminal trespass to disorderly conduct, on day of trial violated Crim. R. 7(D). Disorderly conduct under R.C. § 2917.11(A)(5) was not lesser included offense of criminal trespass; thus, the amendment of the charges changed the identity of the offense in violation of Crim. R. 7(D).
|
|||||
| State v. Davis, No. 87964,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no violation of Ohio Const. art. I, § 14. The police had probable cause to stop defendant as defendant was observed drinking beer from a glass while driving. After stopping the vehicle, the police legally discovered beer, a glass, plastic bags with a bag of crack cocaine inside, and a scale pursuant to the plain view doctrine.
|
|||||
| State v. Djuric, No. 87745,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As defendant tricked a 10-year-old victim into leaving a room where her father was and going with him into a bedroom under the premise of looking for defendant's cat, whereupon defendant engaged in improper sexual conduct toward her, the evidence was sufficient to support his conviction for kidnapping, in violation of R.C. § 2905.01(A)(4).
|
|||||
| State v. Hall, No. 87059,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court properly complied with its duty under Crim. R. 11 and R.C. § 2943.032 when it informed defendant at a plea hearing that he was subject to post-release control and it advised him why he was charged both federally and by the State for firearm possession, the plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered.
|
|||||
| State v. Harris, No. 87918,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel's brief opening statement was not ineffective assistance, and the presence of others in the house where defendant was arrested did not bar his R.C. § 2925.11 conviction for constructively possessing drugs. Evidence linking him to the house and the presence there of others, along with drugs and paraphernalia, proved he permitted drug abuse.
|
|||||
| State v. Harris-Powers, No. 87921,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 1, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The weight and sufficiency of the evidence supported defendant's conviction for aggravated robbery, in violation of R.C. § 2911.01(A)(3), under a complicity theory pursuant to R.C. § 2923.03, as her co-defendants attacked the victim, forced their way into his home, and stole his personal effects.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
