Search for: "In re R.C." Results 41 - 60 of 302
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
20 Jul 2017, 6:52 am by MBettman
” Justice French On July 18, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in In re Adoption of P.L.H., Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-5824. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:25 pm by Alex Hunt
Breaking news today from the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC): Today, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued their opinion in In Re C.P. [read post]
22 Aug 2021, 6:01 am by Eugene Volokh
"] From In re Shin, decided Thursday by the New York intermediate appellate court: Respondent Haelee H. [read post]
7 Mar 2018, 7:15 am by MBettman
Do you have to determine first that you’re a non-smoker, and then you go through the prima facie process, or is it at some point along the way? [read post]
3 Sep 2014, 7:16 am by MBettman
  The certified question is “whether civil liability is expressly imposed upon managers or supervisors under R.C. 4112.01(A)(2) for their individual violations of R.C. 4112.02(A) so that political subdivision immunity is lifted by R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c). [read post]
28 Sep 2017, 6:11 am by MBettman
’s absence constituted an implicit waiver of the right to counsel under R.C. 2151.352 and Juv.R. 4(A). [read post]
10 Nov 2015, 8:32 am by MBettman
Barker’s claim regarding the constitutionality of R.C. 2933.81(B) is barred by res judicata because he did not raise it in the trial court, and could have done so. [read post]
3 Jan 2019, 7:35 am by MBettman
”) In re I.A., 2014-Ohio-3155 (Under 2152.84(A), a child classified as a juvenile-offender registrant under R.C. 2152.83 shall receive a mandatory hearing at the completion of the juvenile’s disposition regarding whether the classification continues to be appropriate.) [read post]
7 Jul 2014, 7:17 am by MBettman
The city argued that because R.C. 2744.07(A)(1) and R.C. 2744.07(A)(2) require the political subdivision to defend and indemnify its employees, R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) therefore defeats the purpose of the “full defense” provision of R.C. 2744.02(B)(1). [read post]
29 Jul 2014, 3:54 am by Jon Hyman
Thus, the Court will have to decide whether Genaro is a valid interpretation of the definition of “employer” under R.C. 4112.01(A)(2). [read post]