 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Arnold v. Ebel, Case No. 06 CA 52,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LICKING COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of defendants was properly granted on the intentional tort claims because the nurses provided no depositions or affidavits from the construction workers, the commissioners, or any additional health department personnel to provide firsthand evidence on the critical "substantial certainty" question of Fyffe.
|
|||||
| Barksdale v. Columbus State Cmty. College, Case No. 2006-05829-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a motorist sued a university for damage to his vehicle while it was parked in the university's parking lot, and the evidence showed that the damage resulted from an unexpected high wind, and the motorist did not show that anything other than an Act of God caused the damage, the motorist was not entitled to recover against the university.
|
|||||
| Bowling v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2006-06647-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained to his vehicle when a rock struck it, judgment was rendered for DOT because the driver had not shown that DOT had actual or constructive notice of the rock, and he did not show that his injury was proximately caused by DOT's negligence.
|
|||||
| City of Columbus v. Rose, No. 06AP-579,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant, who was arrested for DUI, did not have an initial appearance within five days of his arrest, under R.C. §§ 4511.191 and 4511.196, it was error to dismiss criminal charges against him because the provision for an initial appearance in five days only applied to an administrative license suspension accompanying his criminal charges.
|
|||||
| Dean v. Ohio BMV, Case No. 2006-06001-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motorist recovered damages, consisting of towing and mileage costs, resulting from improper listing of her driver's license as suspended, when Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles admitted its error in listing license as suspended and acknowledged the motorist's damages. However, motorist could not recover for work lost as she did not prove those damages.
|
|||||
| Dublin Bldg. Sys. v. Selective Ins. Co. of Am., No. 06AP-213,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the insurer as the contractor's allegations of faulty workmanship by its subcontractor were sufficient to invoke the general coverage provision for "property damage" caused by an "occurrence." Also, coverage was not precluded by the business risk exclusion since the "product" was real property.
|
|||||
| Farmer v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2006-06639-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained to his vehicle when it was struck by concrete on road, judgment was rendered for DOT because the driver had not shown that the debris was connected to any conduct under the control of DOT or that DOT was negligent in maintaining the construction area where the debris was located.
|
|||||
| Hines v. DOT, Case No. 2006-06281-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained to his vehicle when it hit a pothole, judgment was rendered for DOT because the driver had not shown that DOT had actual or constructive notice of the pothole, and he did not show that DOT maintained its highways negligently or that DOT's acts caused the defective condition.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Ring, No. 06AP-801,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under R.C. § 2117.25, it was no abuse of discretion for a trial court to find a fiance's mortgage payments on a decedent's condominium after the decedent's death were a cost of administration of the decedent's estate but that the fiance's resulting claim against the estate was offset by equitable rent the fiance owed the estate for the same period.
|
|||||
| Kaczmarowski v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2006-06329-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained to his vehicle when it ran over open manhole, judgment was rendered for DOT because driver had not shown that DOT had actual or constructive notice of open manhole, and he did not show that DOT failed to discharge duty owed to him or that his injury was caused by DOT's negligence.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
