 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Raff v. Raff, Case Nos. 2006CA00013, 2006CA00016,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a trial court order that awarded child support to a wife in the parties' divorce action was reversed for failure to have used a child support worksheet, the original CS and SS based thereon were void; accordingly, new CS and SS awards entered on remand should have been effective from the date of the original awards.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Bax Global, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 06AP-135,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was no abuse of discretion for the Industrial Commission of Ohio to approve, under R.C. § 4123.66, use of an artificial disc in a claimant's spinal surgery in a place where the FDA had not approved its use, because this decision was for the Commission and some evidence, in the form of medical reports, supported the disc's use at that location.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Genesis Healthcare Sys. v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 05AP-454,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The employer did not demonstrate that the Ohio Industrial Commission abused its discretion by granting the employee's application for PTD compensation. The Commission properly found that the earlier decision by the appellate court was not newly discovered evidence upon which the Commission could rely on for reconsideration.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Sterwerf v. Hoffman Sausage Co., No. 06AP-25,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Ohio Industrial Commission did not err when it denied an award for loss of the employee's fingers under R.C. § 4123.57(B) as he had not lost the use of his fingers. The staff hearing officer was persuaded by the results of the doctor's grip strength testing, by the active movement of all finger joints, and by the employee's testimony.
|
|||||
| State ex rel. Thompson v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 06AP-229,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Ohio Industrial Commission did not err in denying the employee PTD compensation. It did not fail to consider, in combination, the allowed conditions of both industrial claims in determining the employee's residual functional capacity. The issuance of separate orders did not rebut the presumption that it considered all of the allowed conditions.
|
|||||
| State v. Baker, Case No. 2006CA00079,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence was presented to support defendant's conviction for drug trafficking, under R.C. § 2925.03(A)(1), and there was no manifest miscarriage of justice. Because the jury was an actual witness to the controlled drug buy via the audio and video tapes, the credibility of the confidential informant was not an issue.
|
|||||
| State v. Billingsley, CASE NUMBER 12-06-12,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT, PUTNAM COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Imposition of a term of imprisonment on defendant, upon remand for resentencing under State v. Foster, did not violate Ex Post Facto Clause of due process protections as offense occurred subsequent to Apprendi v. New Jersey, providing notice that major shift in sentencing was likely to occur, and sentencing range for felony had remained unchanged.
|
|||||
| State v. Dechiara, C. A. No. 06CA0067-M,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, MEDINA COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions of marijuana possession, under R.C. § 2925.11, drug paraphernalia possession, under R.C. § 2925.14(C)(1), and underage consumption, under R.C. § 4301.69(E), as drugs and paraphernalia were found in a room he said was his, he knew where marijuana was hidden, and beer was found in the same room.
|
|||||
| State v. Edwards, Case No. 2006-CA-00107,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, STARK COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression of evidence was properly denied. Facts that defendant's car was stopped in area reputed to be location of frequent drug sales, that occupants acted suspiciously upon pulling up next to officers, and that the occupants remained inside for some time justified an investigatory stop by way of reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| State v. Grant, C. A. No. 06CA0019-M,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, MEDINA COUNTY, February 20, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under Ohio Const. art. I, § 14, an officer had reasonable and articulable suspicion justifying his stop of a vehicle, as defendant and his passenger matched the descriptions of attempted robbery suspects, and the officer could reasonably believe an item taken in the attempt would be found in the car's trunk, giving him probable cause to search it.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
