 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Borror v. MarineMax of Ohio, Inc., Court of Appeals No. OT-06-010,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, OTTAWA COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a boat seller disclosed to a purchaser that a particular boat had been damaged and repaired, but the full extent of the damages were not disclosed, the seller committed a deceptive act in violation of R.C. § 1345.02(A) of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, R.C. § 1345.01 et seq.; the boat had extensive structural damage.
|
|||||
| Bunkers v. Bunkers, Court of Appeals No. WD-06-030,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WOOD COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Using the extrapolation method to calculate child support above the $ 150,000 maximum, under the R.C. § 3119.021 support schedule, was not an abuse of discretion. When valuing a professional practice, using a fair market approach, including goodwill, and limiting a marketability discount to possible transaction costs was not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Crosset v. Marquette, APPEAL NOS. C-060148, C-060180,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a police officer had probable cause to arrest a former husband on a charge of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. § 2919.25(A), based upon a claim from the former wife and the daughter that he allegedly hit the daughter, and the officer acted without malice, he was entitled to summary judgment on the husband's malicious prosecution claim.
|
|||||
| Deal v. C. J. Kraft Enters., Case No. 06CA00016,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict, under Civ. R. 50, because the employee's evidence was insufficient to constitute an intentional tort. There was no evidence that harm to the employee was a substantial certainty due to a similar incident with an elevator 10 years earlier.
|
|||||
| Edwards v. Southeast Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., CASE NO. 2005-P-0057,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, PORTAGE COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The school board was entitled to summary judgment on the teacher's mandamus petition. Since the superintendent gave the teacher a timely notice of the recommendation for a limited contract of two years, the board was not legally obligated to give the teacher a continuing contract as a teacher, pursuant to R.C. § 3319.11.
|
|||||
| Gessner v. Schroeder, Appellate Case No. 21498,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the police officer on the 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 claim as there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the officer's conduct in arresting the accused who was asking for help was objectively reasonable in light of clearly established rules for warrantless arrests.
|
|||||
| Haas v. Behr Dayton Thermal Prods., LLC, Appellate Case No. 21586,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When employees said their employer would not pay them overtime, it was no abuse of discretion not to certify a class action, under Civ. R. 23(B), because whether each employee was exempt, under R.C. § 4111.03, had to be individually determined. A bar on employer communications with possible class members did not prevent Civ. R. 23(A) certification.
|
|||||
| Heard v. Dubose, APPEAL NO. C-060265,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Temporary employment agency assignees who were injured in a car accident when another worker was driving them all to a job site had no respondeat superior claim against the agency because if the worker was within the scope of the employment for that claim, then the matter would have been covered under workers' compensation only.
|
|||||
| In re Kennedy, APPEAL NO. C-060758,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ohio trial court had subject matter jurisdiction over permanent custody action under former R.C. § 3109.22(A)(1) and (2). Evidence that child's mother allegedly moved to Kentucky before complaint was filed was conflicting. Even so, evidence showed that Ohio had been child's home state within six months of proceedings and that father lived in Ohio.
|
|||||
| In re Matlock, C.A. CASE NO. 21494,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A probate court properly adopted a magistrate's decision to award a guardian of a minor fees in an amount less than requested pursuant to Montgomery County, Ohio, Ct. C.P. Prob. Div. R. 73.1, as interest on tax-deferred accounts which was retained was properly characterized as deposits rather than income for purposes of fee calculation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
