Search for: "D. R.C. D." Results 81 - 100 of 305
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
4 Jun 2019, 4:42 am by MBettman
D’Apolito denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact as to whether Officer Dudley’s actions were willful, wanton, or reckless in entering the intersection, and whether he was properly trained and supervised. [read post]
18 Jul 2011, 3:59 am by Russ Bensing
Yeah, that’d make a difference. [read post]
25 Jun 2015, 10:12 am by MBettman
In that case the court held that suit by a group of tenants against its landlords for violation of certain provisions of Ohio’s Landlord Tenant Act was a tort, and thus the cap on punitive damages codified at R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(a) applied. [read post]
4 May 2007, 1:10 pm
  The court held that the subsection of  the statute that was found unconstitutional, R.C. 2953.82(D), can be severed from the remainder of the post-conviction testing statute. [read post]
28 Feb 2014, 6:28 am by MBettman
Key Precedent R.C. 2315.21(A)(1) (“Tort action” means a civil action for damages for injury or loss to person or property but does not include a civil action for damages for breach of contract or another agreement between persons) R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(a) (In a tort action, the court shall not enter judgment for punitive damages in excess of two times the amount of the compensatory damages awarded to the plaintiff) Ohio Landlord-Tenant Act, R.C.… [read post]
5 Jan 2013, 10:28 am
Önceki düzenlemede “pek lüzumlu ev eşyasından” söz edilirken, yeni düzenlemede lüzumlu eşyasından” bahsedilmesinden, haczedilmezliğin kapsamının genişletildiğine mi, yoksa daraltıldığına mı dair çıkarımda bulunmak oldukça zordur. [read post]
6 Mar 2014, 6:47 am by MBettman
Cooey to hold that R.C. 2945.39(D) (a prior version of the statute) only prohibited use of a defendant’s statement during a court-ordered examination to prove that he committed the crime for which he was facing trial. [read post]
28 Feb 2013, 2:44 pm by ipandentertainmentlaw
  This special day was sponsored by Texas Senators: Robert Deuell (R) and Leticia Van de Putte (D), and Texas Representatives: Myra Crownover (R) and Ryan Guillen (D). [read post]
30 Nov 2011, 3:28 am by Russ Bensing
  Other than that, though, I can’t see how they’d be different. [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 6:10 am by MBettman
At issue in the case is whether Ohio law requires any plaintiff who has been exposed to asbestos and who has lung cancer, and who has smoked in the last 15 years, to submit a written report by a competent medical authority to prove he or she has not smoked enough to be deemed a smoker, as that term is defined by R.C. 2307.91 (D)(D). [read post]
25 Oct 2022, 5:21 am by Eugene Volokh
  The court of appeals agreed with the city, but the Ohio Supreme Court sided with Standifer: R.C. 149.43(A)(1)(h) [part of the Ohio public records statute] exempts CLEIR from disclosure as public records, and R.C. 149.43(A)(2) defines "CLEIR" as "any record that pertains to a law enforcement matter of a criminal, quasi-criminal, civil, or administrative nature, but only to the extent that the release of the record would create a high probability of disclosure… [read post]