 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Pelfrey, Nos. 2005-2075 and 2005-2211,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under R.C. § 2945.75, a jury's verdict form, convicting defendant of records tampering, had to include either the degree of the crime of which he was convicted or a statement that an aggravating element was found to justify convicting him of a greater degree of the crime, and, without this, he could only be convicted of the crime's least degree.
|
|||||
| State v. Zeisig, C. A. No. 23233,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant had not been notified that he was subject to post-release control when he was originally sentenced, R.C. § 2929.191 allowed the trial court to conduct a resentencing at which it properly notified him of his post-release control, even though it was only one day before his release from prison, because his sentence had not yet expired.
|
|||||
| Watkins v. Williams, C. A. No. 23186,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, February 7, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an attorney was awarded attorney's fees against a client for successfully representing him in a wrongful imprisonment case before a court of common pleas and the Ohio Court of Claims, R.C. § 2743.48(F)(2) did not give the Court of Claims exclusive jurisdiction over the attorney's fees, and the client was not entitled to relief from the award.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
