 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Diesz v. Ampco Sys. Parking, C. A. No. 23235,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment was properly granted as the garage only owed the injury victim a duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. He was a trespasser as he had no purpose to be in the parking garage based on the fact that it was impossible for him to enter a car that was not present, nor had he access to the parking garage.
|
|||||
| In re J.B., C. A. No. 23436,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Juv. P. 4(C)(1), the fact that a three and one-half year old subject of a permanent custody proceeding seemed to enjoy his mother's presence did not show the child's wishes conflicted with his guardian ad litem's position that the mother's parental rights should be terminated so as to require the appointment of separate counsel for the child.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. City of Westlake v. Corrigan, No. 2006-1278,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Writ of prohibition was properly dismissed. Since the judge did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction, the city had an adequate remedy by appeal to raise its contentions. After dismissal, the arbitration award ceased to exist and R.C. § 2711.03 applied to direct the parties to proceed with arbitration in accordance with the agreement.
|
|||||
| State v. Bugaj, CASE NO. 06-BE-23,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BELMONT COUNTY, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since defendant failed to provide a transcript of her plea hearing, as required by App. R. 9, the court was unable to determine whether the trial court complied with R.C. § 2937.07, which required an explanation of the circumstances of the offense before the trial court could make a finding of guilty on the basis of a no contest plea.
|
|||||
| State v. Bugaj, CASE NO. 06-BE-27,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, BELMONT COUNTY, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motion to suppress evidence was properly denied. Defendant did not have standing under Fourth Amendment to raise issue as she was merely guest, but even if she did, the motion was properly denied as officer's observation of young children in house without apparent adult supervision constituted exigent circumstance authorizing entry into apartment.
|
|||||
| State v. Buzzard, No. 2005-2061,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The appellate court erred in reversing the denial of defendant's motion to suppress as the Fourth Amendment did not require the police to obtain a warrant before looking through a small opening in a locked double door of a residential garage. The "plain" viewing took place in front of the garage, where there was a diminished expectation of privacy.
|
|||||
| State v. Hoffner, No. 2006-1780,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's application to reopen his appeal was properly dismissed because he did not comply with App. R. 26(B)(1) but, instead, waited to file application until more than five years after court of appeals affirmed his conviction. Defendant's purported inability to secure further representation did not give him good cause to miss filing deadline.
|
|||||
| State v. Oliver, No. 2005-1967,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court remanded cause for trial court to reconsider whether suppression of evidence was mandated on ground that police entered home in violation of "knock and announce" rule. U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Hudson v. Michigan was significant interpretation of exclusionary rule and provoked question of whether exclusion was mandated in case.
|
|||||
| State v. Palmer, Nos. 2006-0022 and 2006-0370,
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The tolling of the statutory speedy-trial time, under R.C. § 2945.72(D), based on defendant's neglect in failing to respond within a reasonable time to the prosecution's request for discovery was not dependent upon the filing of a motion to compel discovery by the prosecution.
|
|||||
| State v. Williams, C. A. No. 23176,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SUMMIT COUNTY, February 14, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in admitting the evidence of the prior car chases, under Evid. R. 404(B). Since at least one of his prior car chases involved an attempt to avoid being caught with cocaine, evidence of the prior incidents could have shown that defendant had a motive--and therefore the intent--to flee from the police officers.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
