 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Spicuzza, CASE NO. 2006-L-141,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LAKE COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the severance remedy in Foster did not violate Ohio Const. art. II, § 28, U.S. Const. art. I, § 10, or federal notions of due process, the resentencing imposed on defendant pursuant to a prior remand under Foster was proper; the sentencing range for defendant's crimes had not changed under R.C. § 2929.14(A)(2).
|
|||||
| State v. Stone, C.A. CASE NO. 06CA0026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, CLARK COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Affidavits of defendant and his fiancee in support of post-conviction petition under R.C. § 2953.21 were properly rejected for lack of credibility as defendant had stated earlier that he was satisfied with counsel's representation, and he had apologized to victim's family for murder; thus, ineffective assistance of counsel claim was not supported.
|
|||||
| State v. Stone, Court of Appeals No. S-06-026,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, SANDUSKY COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied. At the suppression hearing, the police chief testified that he read defendant her rights after she was pulled over. That testimony, if believed, was competent, credible evidence by which the trial court could have found that defendant's Miranda rights were observed.
|
|||||
| State v. Young, Court of Appeals No. L-06-1106,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, LUCAS COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in permitting the nurse to testify as an expert, under Evid. R. 702, as to the examination and recognition of injuries and trauma to the children's' genital and vaginal areas. She had received extensive training and had specialized knowledge and skills related to the examination and recognition of sexual abuse injuries.
|
|||||
| Vanbarg v. Soule, Court of Appeals No. E-06-036,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, ERIE COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's grant of summary judgment to a construction lender in a breach of fiduciary duty action by property owners who had obtained financing for construction of their residence from the lender was proper, as the parties were in a creditor-debtor relationship and there was no showing of any fiduciary relationship between them.
|
|||||
| Wooding v. Cinfed Emples. Fed. Credit Union, APPEAL NO. C-050958,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, HAMILTON COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a lender failed to provide an executed copy of a credit card agreement that demonstrated a cross-collateralization of a debtor's car, which was collateral for her car loan, there was no meeting of the minds shown to support the lender's retention of the title to the car for the debtor's credit card account default.
|
|||||
| Zink v. Zink, C.A. CASE NO. 2006 CA 22,
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, February 23, 2007, Rendered
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a child support enforcement agency did not schedule the administrative review hearing a father requested on the agency's recommendation of an increase in his child support obligation, pursuant to R.C. § 3119.76, or tell him the hearing was denied, a trial court denied the father due process by incorporating that recommendation into an order.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
