Search for: "D. R.C. D." Results 281 - 300 of 305
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
18 Dec 2009, 3:45 am by Russ Bensing
I'd probably feel better about the argument if abuse of discretion was limited to the situations described in the article. [read post]
15 Dec 2009, 7:37 pm
WAR AGAINST PHOTOGRAPHY (CONT'D): Photographer arrested at mall after taking holiday photos. [read post]
10 Nov 2009, 6:53 pm
“Sanction” is defined in R.C. 2929.01(D)(D) as “any penalty imposed upon an offender who is convicted of or pleads guilty to an offense, as punishment for the offense. [read post]
17 Sep 2009, 7:55 am
"In analyzing the school district's argument that the exam questions fall within a statutory exception for trade secrets, Justice Lanzinger wrote: "The Ohio Uniform Trade Secrets Act, R.C. 1333.61 through 1333.69, is a state law exempting trade secrets from disclosure under R.C. 149.43. [read post]
16 Sep 2009, 3:27 am
The judge eventually denied his post-conviction relief petition, and after he’d exhausted his appeals on that, Broom took his case into Federal court on habeas corpus in 1999. [read post]
25 Aug 2009, 3:25 am
Mary's school was either open or operating as a school, and that it could easily have been abandoned or closed since no evidence was produced to show that it was operating as a school pursuant to the standards set by the State of Ohio School Board pursuant to R.C. 3301.07. [read post]
30 Jul 2009, 3:29 am
  Interestingly, the judicial factfinding under Ohio law that is most comparable to that in Apprendi and its progeny is R.C. 2929.12, which spells out the seriousness and recidivism factors. [read post]
17 Jun 2009, 3:55 am
  From the looks of the oral argument in Singleton, I’d say the State has an uphill battle. [read post]
21 Jan 2009, 3:45 am
    In D’Amore v. [read post]
12 Nov 2008, 1:04 pm
So the court reversed her conviction and "discharge[d] Ellison from further prosecution. [read post]
14 Feb 2008, 1:36 pm
The Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not apply to the use of memorized information that is not a trade secret pursuant to R.C. 1333.61(D). [read post]
8 Feb 2008, 12:37 am
Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the determination of whether a client list constitutes a trade secret pursuant to R.C. 1333.61(D) does not depend on whether it has been memorized by a former employee. ... [read post]
7 Feb 2008, 4:38 am
The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously answered this question in the affirmative, holding that information that constitutes a trade secret under R.C. 1333.61(D) does not lose its character by being recreated from memory. [read post]
13 Nov 2007, 11:14 am
Ohio imposes an analogous duty to the Florida’s statue in R.C. [read post]