 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Tittl, Case No. V2006-20909,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A victim of an identity theft incident failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was a victim of criminally injurious conduct pursuant to R.C. § 2743.51(C)(1) and (L), as the incident did not pose a substantial threat of personal injury or death to her; the financial crime was not within the compensation program's coverage.
|
|||||
| Kemp v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, Case No. 2006-07821-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Riblet v. Dayton Foods, Ltd., C.A. CASE NO. 2006CA0058,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly adopted a magistrate's decision to allow an employee's expert to testify under Evid. R. 702 with respect to additional conditions that allegedly arose from her accident at work, for which she had already received a workers' compensation award, as the testimony was helpful and the expert was qualified.
|
|||||
| Rogers v. City of Dayton, C.A. CASE NO. 21593,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a city was not, as a matter of law, self-insured because it had not complied with R.C. § 4509.72(A), a motor vehicle driven by a city employee was within the definition an uninsured motor vehicle under R.C. § 3937.18(K)(3); the insurer of the other individual involved in the accident was not excluded from liability.
|
|||||
| Sabbatis v. Burkey, Case No. 2006P080046,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's exclusion of counsel's time records for purposes of considering an attorney fee award was not an abuse of discretion, as counsel was sufficiently cross-examined for purposes of establishment of the fees.
|
|||||
| Salvucci v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2006-07171-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a driver's claim against Ohio DOT to recover for damages sustained to her vehicle when it hit a piece of concrete on the roadway, judgment was rendered for DOT because the driver had not shown that DOT had actual or constructive notice of the defect, and she did not show that her injury was proximately caused by DOT's negligence.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Mills v. McGinty, No. 89145,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| State v. Ashley, CASE NO. 2006-L-134,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Applying Foster to defendant's greater than minimum sentence did not violate due process or Ohio Const. art. II, § 28's ex post facto clause because he knew (1) a greater than minimum sentence was possible, (2) the sentencing statutes could be judicially reviewed, and (3) nothing showed the sentencing change would have altered his criminal conduct.
|
|||||
| State v. Couch, APPEAL NO. C-060232,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Motions to withdraw guilty plea were properly denied as defendant was represented by competent counsel, he was given a full hearing on motions, he was lucid, the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motions, and a considerable length of time had passed between the time that defendant was to be sentenced and the filing of his motion.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
