 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Barnhisel v. Barnhisel, Court of Appeals No. WD-06-024,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WOOD COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a trial court entered a judgment purporting to modify a prior order, pursuant to a mother's reconsideration motion, the motion and the judgment were nullities, and, once the prior order, deciding custody, child support, and visitation, became final, under R.C. § 2505.02, because it was not timely appealed, the trial court could not modify it.
|
|||||
| Bd. of Trs. of Chester Twp. v. Baumgardner, CASE NO. 2005-G-2652,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, GEAUGA COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A property owner's appeal from a trial court's denial of multiple motions that he made following the trial court's decision to hold him in contempt was dismissed for lack of a final appealable order, as sanctions for the contempt finding had not yet been imposed.
|
|||||
| City of Toledo v. Ross, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1046,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly imposed a fine against defendant upon finding that he was guilty of contempt for violation of a court order that prohibited his continued rental practices in violation of Toledo, Ohio, Mun. Code § 1103.16; although the fine exceeded the amount in R.C. § 2705.05, the trial court acted under its inherent authority.
|
|||||
| Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Enerfab, Inc., C.A. CASE NO. 21512,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment to a utility maintenance company's insurer was proper in a declaratory judgment action by a utility company (UC), seeking a determination on insurance coverage with respect to an underlying negligence judgment against the UC, as only the UC was found negligent and indemnity agreements were prohibited by R.C. § 2305.31.
|
|||||
| Dewey v. State, CASE NO. 2006-A-0012,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ASHTABULA COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate's action seeking order releasing him from prison was one in habeas corpus, not mandamus. Action was dismissed because court did not have power to render a final determination on the merits of the claim under R.C. § 2725.03 in light of fact that inmate was being held in a correctional institution outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Flores v. Porter, Case No. 2006-CA-42,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, RICHLAND COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appeal had to be dismissed for lack of a final appealable order. The judgment entry from which the appeal was taken did not bear the signature of the trial judge. Rather, the trial judge's signature was rubber-stamped on the judgment entry. It therefore did not comply with Civ. R. 58 and was thus not a final appealable order.
|
|||||
| Hanson v. Riccardi, Court of Appeals No. E-06-047,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ERIE COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of court costs on a plaintiff who voluntarily dismissed his action pursuant to Civ. R. 41(A)(1)(a), with the condition that the costs were to be paid as a prerequisite to refiling the action, was premature and without authority where no action had been refiled; further, it was deemed an abuse of discretion in the circumstances.
|
|||||
| In re D.W., CASE NO. 21630,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As there were disturbing allegations about twin boys' half-sister's home regarding her own children's adjustment, lack of bonding with the boys, and hygiene problems, a home investigation should have been performed prior to adoption of a magistrate's decision to award custody of the boys to her rather than to their grandmother under R.C. § 3109.04.
|
|||||
| In re Heading, Case No. V2006-20704,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION, February 2, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An award of unreimbursed work loss to a crime victim was not modified to add reimbursement for towing expenses of her automobile from the expressway following an assault incident, as the automobile was not towed for evidentiary purposes pursuant to R.C. § 2743.51(U).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
