 |
|
 |
|
|
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 v. Mayle, Case No. 06CA21,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ATHENS COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the postconviction relief petition, under R.C. § 2953.21. Since the petition was filed more than seven years after the attempted, direct appeal of defendant's conviction and sentence, his petition was untimely filed. The holding in Foster did not require that defendant be resentenced.
|
|||||
| State v. Mulholland, CASE NO. 05-MA-160,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, MAHONING COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since a trial court's imposition of a more than minimum sentence on defendant was based on R.C. § 2929.14(B), which the Ohio Supreme Court had found unconstitutional in State v. Foster, defendant's sentence had to be reversed, and the matter had to be remanded for a new sentencing hearing.
|
|||||
| State v. Smith, Case No. 06CA35,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ATHENS COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct a bench trial because the jury waiver was not signed by defendant himself, as required by R.C. § 2945.05. Although defendant properly demanded a jury trial in accordance with Crim. R. 23(A), his counsel attempted to waive, in writing, defendant's right to a jury trial.
|
|||||
| Sullivan v. BMV, Case No. 2006-04393-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 6, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Bureau of Motor Vehicles was not liable for towing and storage fees a motorist incurred when her driver's license was listed as suspended for failure to show proof of insurance because, while she had insurance, she did not answer a letter stating her license would be suspended unless she showed proof of insurance, resulting in the suspension.
|
|||||
| Tanzillo v. Edwards, No. 06AP-383,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given the home sellers' nondisclosure of the true nature and extent of the problem with the basement floor and their active concealment of the crumbling grout, the trial court's finding of fraud was supported by competent, credible evidence. They consistently swept up the flaking grout, concealing the problem from prospective purchasers.
|
|||||
| Vance v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2006-06698-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 her vehicle when it hit truck mud flap laying in road, judgment was rendered for DOT as driver had not shown that DOT had actual or constructive notice of mud flap, and she did not show that DOT maintained its highways negligently or that DOT's acts caused defective condition.
|
|||||
| Williamson v. Cooke, No. 05AP-936,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 6, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in finding the father in contempt for his delay in reimbursing the mother for the educational expenses for the parties' son as the father was current on his payments prior to the contempt hearing. Contempt was also error as to visitation since his complaint about a half hour being taken from his midweek visitation time had merit.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
