 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| KLG Mobile Intensive Co. v. Salem Cmty. Hosp., CASE NO. 06 CO 1,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an ambulance company transported hospital patients for testing the hospital could not provide, the parties had no contract under which the company could recover, because no meeting of the minds existed, but, under unjust enrichment, the company was entitled to a pro rata share of Medicare's lump sum payments to the hospital for the patients.
|
|||||
| Mathewson v. Mathewson, C.A. CASE NO. 05-CA-035,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in imputing $ 30,000 of gross annual income to the father because it did not reference any of the factors listed in R.C. § 3119.01(C)(11). The trial court incorrectly presumed that the father could earn as much without a law license as he had earned through the use of his law license.
|
|||||
| Maynard v. Rogers, Court of Appeals No. OT-06-018,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, OTTAWA COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly granted summary judgment to village residents who challenged absentee ballots in municipal elections and were thereafter sued by the voters in a sham legal process civil action under R.C. § 2921.52, as the residents were entitled to the protection of the affirmative defense when they issued subpoenas with a lawful purpose.
|
|||||
| MedVet Assocs., Inc. v. Sebring, Case No. 2006 CVF 035833,
STATE OF OHIO, FRANKLIN COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dog owners were responsible for the balance of a veterinary clinic's bill because by signing a written estimate for the clinic's services, the owners entered into a contract with the clinic; the contract was unambiguous that the costs could exceed the estimate if unforeseen complications arose.
|
|||||
| Metz v. Metz, APPEAL NO. C-050463,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's adoption of a magistrate's decision to use the first property hearing date in the parties' divorce proceeding as the statutory marriage termination date was proper pursuant to R.C. § 3105.71(A)(2)(a), and valuations that were based on that termination date were not an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Outback/Buckeye II Ltd. P'ship v. Grandchildren's Trust, Appellate Case No. 06-CA-2, 06-CA-44,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the trial court properly granted a permanent injunction regarding termination of the commercial leases, it erred in granting the emergency order, which was an attempt under Civ. R. 60(A) to correct an error, because the tenants failed to ask for leave from the appellate court to correct a mistake in the permanent injunction order.
|
|||||
| Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Harrison, C.A. CASE NO. 21521,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly granted judgment in favor of an insurer in its subrogation action against a perpetrator who allegedly shot a gun into its insured's vehicle, as the perpetrator had failed to fully respond to requests for admissions under Civ. R. 36(A) despite having been given numerous opportunities to do so.
|
|||||
| Qualchoice, Inc. v. State Farm Ins. Co., CASE NO. 2006-L-102,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred by granting summary judgment. The property insurer failed to show that no genuine issues of material fact existed as it did not direct the trial court to evidentiary material demonstrating that the victim's insurer was not entitled to recovery for subrogation. "Damages" could have referred to money owed.
|
|||||
| State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hill, C.A. CASE NO. 2006 CA 24,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to an insurer in its subrogation action on behalf of its insured, who was shot at by a convicted perpetrator, as the insurer was entitled to recovery for sums paid on behalf of its insured, with credit to the perpetrator for sums paid in restitution to the insured under R.C. § 2929.18(A)(1) and (H).
|
|||||
| State v. Hardin, Appellate Case No. 06-CA-1685,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DARKE COUNTY, February 9, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The non-minimum, consecutive sentences imposed on defendant were reversed and matter was remanded for re-sentencing because, prior to imposing the sentences, the common pleas court made findings in violation of State v. Foster.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
