 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Benson v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2005-10926-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A property owner suffered a compensable taking under U.S. Const. amend. V and Ohio Const. art. I, § 19 when lights installed on an adjacent roadway by the Ohio Department of Transportation caused his crop to fail, as he suffered a harm that differed "in kind" rather than "in degree" from the general public.
|
|||||
| Bregenzer v. DOT, Case No. 2006-07147-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 22, 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.
|
|||||
| City of Cleveland v. Stoutemire, No. 88257,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 22, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissing carrying an unregistered handgun charges, under Cleveland, Ohio, Codified Ordinance § 674.02, was proper because the material exculpatory evidence that defendant had a permit for the gun in question, which permit police seized, and of which he properly sought disclosure, occurred only after repeated requests and trial court instruction.
|
|||||
| Coats v. City of Columbus, No. 06AP-681,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 22, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a city employee who did not receive a promised promotion committed suicide, the city was not liable, under R.C. § 2744.09, for IIED because intentional torts, for which it could not be liable, could not arise from his employment, nor was it liable under R.C. § 2744.02(B)(4), which only applied to injury from physical defects in city property.
|
|||||
| Hasselback v. Hasselback, No. 06AP-776,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, FRANKLIN COUNTY, February 22, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Faced only with evidence that the "points" method was the appropriate method for valuating the husband's National Guard pension, the trial court abused its discretion in issuing a distributive award based on the number of years of service, and in failing to utilize the "point" method to calculate the wife's portion of the National Guard pension.
|
|||||
| Hofelich v. King, Nos. 87804, 88879,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, February 22, 2007, Released
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a lawyer agreed, on dissolving his partnership with another lawyer, that each would keep certain cases and hold the other harmless, he was not entitled to half the fees his former partner later received on cases the former partner took with him, nor did R.C. § 1775.17 require the former partner to hold or account for those fees to the lawyer.
|
|||||
| In re A.W., CASE NO. CA2006-10-036,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLINTON COUNTY, February 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile court's decision to grant permanent custody of a mother's child to a county agency was in the child's best interest under R.C. § 2151.414(B) and (D), as the mother had failed to complete her case plan; placement with the grandmother was denied, as she violated a no-contact order between the mother and child.
|
|||||
| In re Schwendeman, Case No. 06CA33,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, WASHINGTON COUNTY, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the mother failed to allege a change of circumstances which would have permitted a modification of parental rights and responsibilities under R.C. § 3109.04, the trial court did not err by finding no change of circumstances and denying an evidentiary hearing. Her claims were known to the trial court at the time it awarded the father custody.
|
|||||
| Issa v. Bair, Case No. 2006P050026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, TUSCARAWAS COUNTY, February 22, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a juvenile court awarded a child's custody to the child's grandparents, a general trial court had no jurisdiction to subsequently award the child's custody to the child's father because, under R.C. § 2151.23(A)(1) and (F)(1), the juvenile court continued to have exclusive jurisdiction over this issue, even though its case had been closed.
|
|||||
| Koehler v. Ohio DOT, Case No. 2005-11183-AD,
COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As lights installed by the Ohio Department of Transportation on a roadway that was adjacent to an owner's property caused his crop not to ripen, which was a harm suffered "in kind" rather than in degree from the general public, a taking occurred pursuant to U.S. Const. amend. V and Ohio Const. art. I, § 19 which was compensable.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
