Search for: "D. R.C. D."
Results 101 - 120
of 305
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Jul 2018, 6:27 am
Chrysler Corp., pursuant to the current version of the statute, 4123.512(D). [read post]
9 Jul 2018, 10:16 am
”) D’Amore v. [read post]
11 May 2018, 11:31 am
”) At Oral Argument Arguing Counsel Meagan D. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 9:07 am
R.C. 2903.01(B) (No person shall purposely cause the death of another . . . after committing or attempting to commit… rape…) R.C. 2929.03(D)(3) (If, after receiving the trial jury’s recommendation that the sentence of death be imposed, the court finds, by proof beyond a reasonable doubt…that the aggravating circumstances the offender was found guilty of committing outweigh the mitigating factors, it shall impose the sentence of death on the… [read post]
20 Apr 2018, 7:25 am
David D. [read post]
13 Mar 2018, 6:37 am
Bode, 2015-Ohio-1519 (“[A]n adjudication of delinquency may not be used to enhance the penalty for a later offense under R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) when the adjudication carried the possibility of confinement, the adjudication was uncounseled, and there was no effective waiver of the right to counsel. [read post]
7 Mar 2018, 7:15 am
At issue in the case is whether Ohio law requires any plaintiff who has been exposed to asbestos and who has lung cancer, 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]
19 Feb 2018, 9:42 am
Bode, 2015-Ohio-1519 (“[A]n adjudication of delinquency may not be used to enhance the penalty for a later offense under R.C. 4511.19(G)(1)(d) when the adjudication carried the possibility of confinement, the adjudication was uncounseled, and there was no effective waiver of the right to counsel. [read post]
14 Feb 2018, 7:21 am
Heartbeat Provisions The Heartbeat Provisions are codified at R.C. 2317.56, 2919.19 through 2919.193, and R.C. 4731.22. [read post]
13 Feb 2018, 6:43 am
Buell, 22 Ohio St.3d 124 (1986) (R.C. 2929.03(D)(3) delegates the death sentencing responsibility to the trial court upon its separate and independent finding that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating factors.) [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 6:35 am
Key Precedent Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 15(D) (“No bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. [read post]
7 Feb 2018, 7:43 am
Key Precedent R.C. 2305.09(D) (four-year statute of limitations for certain otherwise unspecified torts.) [read post]
5 Feb 2018, 6:10 am
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]
30 Jan 2018, 12:30 pm
R.C. 2152.12(B) (Discretionary bindover statute for juveniles) (Subsections D and E provide factors for and against transfer of cases from juvenile to adult court.) [read post]
16 Jan 2018, 10:14 am
Pursuant to R.C. 2929.03(D)(3), the trial court may sentence a defendant to death only if the court finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the aggravating circumstances in a case outweigh any mitigating factors. [read post]
15 Jan 2018, 7:44 am
R.C. 2152.12 (B)(Discretionary bindover statute for juveniles)(Subsections D and E provide factors for and against transfer of cases from juvenile to adult court.) [read post]
28 Nov 2017, 9:58 am
Not all courts follow this approach, but I thought I’d note that some do. [read post]
10 Nov 2017, 6:58 am
Cole also argued that he is immune from liability under R.C. 4123.741. [read post]
5 Oct 2017, 8:57 am
Key Precedent Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 15(D) (“[n]o bill shall contain more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title. [read post]
2 Oct 2017, 7:08 am
R. 48(D) (Describing the guidelines for guardians ad litem (“GAL”), including a requirement on the GAL to represent the “best interest” of the child even if incongruent with the expressed interest of the child. [read post]
