Search for: "S. R.C. T."
Results 341 - 360
of 520
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Oct 2014, 8:52 am
Important Precedent for This Decision R.C. 4123.741 (Provides immunity from damages to an employee who injures a fellow employee of the same company in the course of and arising out of the injured employee’s employment.) [read post]
23 Oct 2014, 8:25 am
She hadn’t started work yet. [read post]
20 Oct 2014, 12:19 pm
After they moved in, they found that their electronic equipment didn’t work right. [read post]
16 Oct 2014, 11:19 am
He has had a Florida driver’s license since he moved down there, and didn’t renew his Ohio license. [read post]
14 Oct 2014, 11:09 am
What Happened on Remand On remand, the City again filed for summary judgment, arguing there was no evidence that Michael’s injury was caused by any physical defect, but if there were, the City didn’t create it and had no knowledge of it. [read post]
25 Sep 2014, 10:21 am
Case Conclusion Quarterman didn’t do the right thing from the beginning, and didn’t try to fix it right on appeal. [read post]
22 Sep 2014, 6:04 am
Key Statute and Precedent R.C. 2711.10 (Bases on which a court of common pleas shall vacate an arbitration award.) [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 7:16 am
Transport Inc., 84 Ohio St.3d 293 (1999) (a private employer’s supervisor or manager may be held personally liable for violating R.C. [read post]
29 Aug 2014, 3:40 pm
Univ. of Cincinnati, 2006-Ohio-6208 (if an employee’s actions are self-serving or have no relationship to the employer’s business, then the conduct is ‘manifestly outside the scope of employment’) Ohio Gov’t Risk Mgt. [read post]
17 Jul 2014, 11:18 am
R.C. 2953.31 & 2953.32, originally enacted in 1973. [read post]
14 Jul 2014, 6:48 am
Under current law they don’t. [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 7:17 am
I’m betting, though, the Court won’t take it again. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 7:31 am
Precision’s principal place of business is in Medina County. [read post]
24 Jun 2014, 7:03 am
The ten year tax abatement in R.C. 5709.87 has been on the books for twenty years. [read post]
23 Jun 2014, 7:10 am
’s Parents A.G. [read post]
15 Jun 2014, 9:15 am
Pertinent to this appeal is Hoyle’s claim brought pursuant to R.C. 2745.01(C), the section of the intentional tort statute dealing with deliberate removal of an equipment safety guard. [read post]
29 May 2014, 1:10 pm
At Oral Argument Vanzandt’s Argument The General Assembly has been clear and unambiguous in R.C. 2953.53(D) about when a sealed record of acquittal may be used. [read post]
20 May 2014, 9:12 am
Pro-Pak’s Argument The legislature has made it quite clear that its intent in enacting R.C. 2745.01 was to significantly restrict employer intentional tort litigation. [read post]
16 May 2014, 7:30 am
Hallmark argued that the statute of repose, R.C. 2305.131, barred Oaktree’s claim. [read post]
