 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re D.F., No. 06AP-1052,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 13, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A hospital could forcibly medicate a patient because two physicians testified that (1) the patient's delusions made her imminently dangerous to herself, (2) there was no less intrusive means to avoid the danger, (3) the medication to be administered was medically appropriate for her, and (4) she could not make an informed decision about medication.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Waldron v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 06AP-55,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 13, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The order denying PTD compensation was not supported by some evidence and was therefore an abuse of discretion. The doctor's opinion that the employee was not permanently and totally disabled was not some evidence as it was rendered contradictory or uncertain by the doctor's later statement that the employee "might" be able to return to work.
|
|||||
| State v. Dunn, Case No. 06CA18,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, PICKAWAY COUNTY, February 13, 2007, File-stamped.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Postconviction relief petition was properly denied because petition was untimely, and inmate did not show that exception in R.C. § 2953.23(A)(1) authorizing court to consider untimely petition applied. State v. Foster did not create new right that applied retroactively to the inmate as inmate's case was not on direct review when Foster was decided.
|
|||||
| State v. Fout, No. 06AP-664,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 13, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Severing R.C. § 2929.14(B), on maximum sentences, and ruling findings were no longer required to impose such a sentence, was not an ex post facto law as minimum sentences were not irrebuttably presumed when defendant committed his crimes, and reimposing a sentence imposed pursuant to unconstitutional judicial fact-finding did not abuse discretion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
