 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Albert v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2006-07287-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motorist's claim for recovery of damage to his motor vehicle which allegedly occurred when it traveled over a raised manhole cover in a construction zone on a roadway failed, as he did not show any negligence on the part of the Ohio Department of Transportation or its agents.
|
|||||
| Aquila v. Lamalfa, CASE NO. 2005-L-148,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where two adult males were competing in a sack race and one tackled the other from behind, causing injury, it could not be said that the tackling was a foreseeable part of the game, because sack racing was not a contact sport, so it was error for a trial court to grant summary judgment denying the alleged injured party's negligence claim.
|
|||||
| Azarova v. Schmitt, APPEAL NO. C-060090,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prenuptial agreement was properly held to be unenforceable on grounds of overreaching, coercion, and duress as Ukranian wife did not have opportunity to consult with counsel before signing agreement, she was not fluent in English, and agreement was presented to wife five days before wedding and two weeks before her fiancee visa would have expired.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Border, CASE NOS. 2004-T-0051 and 2004-T-0060,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, TRUMBULL COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the trial court's entry denying an insurer's motion to intervene did not include the required Civ. R. 54(B) language of no just reason for delay and the victim's claims were still pending as of the date of the entry, the trial court's order was not final and appealable at that time. The motion to intervene was untimely, under Civ. R. 24(A).
|
|||||
| Hicks v. Allen, CASE NO. 2005-A-0002,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ASHTABULA COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a deputy sheriff was a keeper, under R.C. § 955.28(B), of the police dog that caused an injury, to the extent that plaintiffs suffered injury as a result of the dog's jumping episode, § 955.28(B) expressly imposed civil liability upon the deputy, an employee of a political subdivision, as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| In re Bell, Case No. V2006-20437, Case No. V2006-20453,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A crime reparations application, seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred as a result of the fatal shooting of a victim, was properly denied by the Ohio Attorney General pursuant to R.C. § 2743.60(E)(1)(c) and (F), as the victim was engaged in felonious conduct of drug trafficking at the time of his death.
|
|||||
| In re Dailey, Case No. V2006-20232,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Ohio Attorney General's denial of a claim for reimbursement of expenses, based on the fatal shooting of a crime victim, was proper pursuant to R.C. § 2743.60(E)(1)(c) and (F), as the victim was engaged in violent felonious conduct and substantial contributory misconduct at the time of the incident.
|
|||||
| In re Haas, Case No. V2006-20887,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A three-commissioner panel awarded a crime victim an amount for unreimbursed work loss that was slightly higher than the amount asserted by the Ohio Attorney General and less than that sought, based on utilization of the victim's net daily salary for the eight weeks of work loss.
|
|||||
| In re T. S., Appellate Case No. 06-CA-60,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's finding that the child could not be placed with her father under the R.C. § 2151.414(E) factors was supported by the evidence, justifying its decision to award permanent custody to the agency. The child had been sexually abused while living with her mother and the mother's boyfriend and that the father did nothing to prevent it.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
