LexisNexis
  

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 Courts - Ohio - February 15, 2007

  
Barnick v. Barnick, No. 87997, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: A father's guardian could evict the father's son from the father's home so it could be sold to make the father, in a nursing home, eligible for Medicaid, and the father's alleged consent to the son staying in the house was not enough, under Medicaid regulations, to bar its sale. The son only occupied it without color of title, under R.C. § 1923.02.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Bencivenni v. Dietz, No. 88269, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: When home buyers sued a home inspector, it was error for the trial court to grant the inspector's motion to stay the matter pending arbitration, under R.C. § 2711.02, without holding an evidentiary hearing because the buyers contested the enforceability and validity of the arbitration agreement by claiming that its terms were unconscionable.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
In re Estate of Collins, No. 87978, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: A trial court properly appointed an independent third party to be the guardian of an incompetent ward, after notifying those to whom notice was required, under R.C. § 2111.04, because of family hostility between those who sought to be appointed, and the ward's wife was not denied due process when a separate hearing was not held on her application.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Anderson, No. 87994, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Defendant was a sexual predator, under R.C. § 2950.09(B)(3) because (1) his victim was 12, (2) he had been convicted of sex offenses regarding a 13 year-old girl, (3) he had authority over the victim, (4) he had antisocial disorder, (5) his crimes were part of a course of conduct, (6) he blamed his victim, and (7) he had a high re-offending risk.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Boddie, No. 87538, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: The trial court erred in granting the application for expungement without first holding a hearing. Pursuant to R.C. § 2953.32(B), the requirement of a hearing was mandatory. However, there was nothing whatsoever in the record to support the State's contention that defendant was not a "first offender" and thus not eligible for an expungement.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Cook, No. 87265, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Victim's statement to her daughter were non-testimonial as she was not making the statement with the belief it would be used in a later trial. Admission of the testimony as an excited utterance under Evid. R. 803(2) was not unreasonable, as the victim was still very upset and was not able to separate herself from where the abuse occurred.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Gresham, No. 88013, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Co-defendants' affidavits recanting trial testimony that defendant had a gun at the crime scene did not require a new trial under Crim. R. 33(A) after his convictions of involuntary manslaughter, felonious assault, and related crimes, because victims said he was at the scene, so his convictions were not only based on the co-defendants' testimony.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Hall, No. 87992, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court's third attempt at sentencing defendant was reversed, and the case was remanded for resentencing. Sentence was imposed before Ohio Supreme Court reversed appellate court's judgment, which required trial court to make requisite findings before imposing consecutive sentences, and remanded matter for resentencing based on State v. Foster.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Kinser, Case No. 06-CA-18, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FAIRFIELD COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free  

Overview: Trial court considered factors in R.C. § 2950.09(B) and properly adjudicated defendant a sexual predator. While defendant had not been convicted of prior sexually oriented offenses, he had engaged in sexual conduct with his own child, he showed graphic materials to child, and he was in position of authority and used it for his own sexual pleasure.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
State v. Manus, No. 87991, COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 15, 2007, Released
View this case - free  

Overview: In accepting defendant's guilty plea to gross sexual imposition and abduction, a trial court followed Crim. R. 11(C), but his sentence was void, and a claim that applying Foster to him violated due process was not ripe. Counsel was not ineffective for strategically stipulating to a sexual predator classification, as the trial court held a hearing.

Search Cases for Free|Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers|Case Summary Email Service - 50% off

  
Back to Top
  

  www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us
  CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.