 |
|
 |
|
|
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 v. Jessee, C.A. CASE NO. 06CA33,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant did not meet the statutory definition of an habitual sex offender, per R.C. § 2950.01(B), as he had not been convicted on two or more separate occasions of sexually oriented offenses. Defendant's convictions under R.C. § 2907.322(A)(5) and R.C. § 2907.323(A)(3) were not sexually oriented offenses per R.C. § 2950.01(D)(1)(b)(iii) and (iv).
|
|||||
| State v. Lyons, APPEAL NO. C-060448,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred when it dismissed the drug possession charge. Since Cincinnati, Ohio, Mun. Code § 759-4 (use of a motor vehicle to facilitate a drug offense) was intended to establish a civil penalty and its purpose and effect did not transform it into a criminal penalty, for double-jeopardy purposes, the ordinance established a civil penalty.
|
|||||
| State v. Meese, Case No. 2005P110075,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction and sentence were reversed where his counsel indicated that defendant wished to enter a no contest plea but defendant never actually entered the plea, the trial court never found defendant "guilty," and there was no explanation of the effects of the plea as required by Crim. R. 11(E).
|
|||||
| State v. Page, C.A. CASE NO. 21638,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence seized during pat-down search should have been suppressed. While officers saw defendant possibly engaging in a drug transaction with drug dealer, officers could not show that they had reasonable suspicion that defendant was armed. Frisk for weapons was not justified just because investigative stop for suspected drug dealing was authorized.
|
|||||
| State v. Thrasher, C.A. CASE NO. 06CA0069,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY, February 16, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred holding that the affidavits submitted in support of the postconviction relief petition, under R.C. § 2953.21, lacked credibility. Nothing in the affidavits contradicted evidence to which the affiants testified at trial and the affidavits did not rely on hearsay. They were offered to prove what defendant had told his attorney.
|
|||||
| Whittaker v. DOT, Case No. 2006-07058-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 his vehicle when it hit a pothole, judgment was rendered for DOT because the driver had not shown that DOT had actual or constructive notice of the pothole, and he did not show that DOT maintained its highways negligently or that DOT's acts caused the defective condition.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
