Cases

[Cite as State v. Powell, 2022-Ohio-3220.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MAHONING COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM L. POWELL, Defendant-Appella

JUDGES: Hon. Carol Ann Robb, Hon. Cheryl L. Waite, Hon. Mary DeGenaro OPINION ROBB, P.J. {¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant Albert Matasy appeals the decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court granting *747summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Defendant-Appellee Youngstown Ohio Hospital Company, LLC.

980 F.Supp. 908 (1997) Darlene JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF YOUNGSTOWN, et al., Defendants. No. 4:93CV2115. United States District Court, N.D. Ohio. October 14, 1997. *909 *910 James Bruce Callen, Tammie Riley Jones, Northeast Ohio Legal Serv., Youngstown, OH, for Plaintiffs. M

[Cite as Snowville Subdivision Joint Venture Phase I v. Home S. & L. of Youngstown, Ohio, 2012-Ohio-1342.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 96675 SNOWVILLE SUBDIVISION JOINT VENTURE PHASE I, ET AL.

FULL TEXT. THOMAS, J. The plaintiff in error was convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Youngstown on a charge of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor. Error was prosecuted to the Court of Common Pleas and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed. The case is now before this court for review and a reversal is sought of the decisions of the other courts. The record sh

ROBERTS, J. The industry of counsel has resulted in the citing of a large number of authorities considered as being applicable to this case. The issues in the matter under consideration may be abbreviated by adopting the suggestion of counsel for plaintiff in error, where it is said in brief filed on page 7: “The sole question of this law suit then resolves itself as to whether or not Carl Wollitz h

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 622 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 623 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE N

O’Connor, J. {¶ 1} In case Nos. 2005-1210 and 2005-1211, we decide the constitutionality of a municipality’s taking of an individual’s property by eminent domain and transferring the property to a private entity for redevelopment. In doing so, we must balance two competing interests of great import in American democracy: the individual’s rights in the possession and security of property and the sovereign’s power to take priv

359 N.E.2d 536 (1977) CITY OF WHITING, Appellant, v. CITY OF EAST CHICAGO and Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Appellees. No. 676S169. Supreme Court of Indiana. February 10, 1977. *537 Charles T. Clifford, Valparaiso, John S. Grimes, Indianapolis, Donald L. Gray, Whiting, for appellant. Lester F. Murphy, East Chicago, fo

We concur in the first paragraph of the syllabus, but dissent from the judgment for the reason that the appellants herein were never permitted to teach in the Youngstown public schools under their continuing contracts and, therefore, there were no teaching performances, under such contracts, upon which the board could have based determinations of disqualification existing during such time. *Page 361

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 538 Appellees filed suit against the city of Loveland, claiming negligence, negligence per se, statutory nuisance, common-law nuisance, and trespass for the city's alleged misconduct in allowing sediment from a city-owned park to flow into, and thereby damage, appellees' pond. The trial court found in favor o

{¶ 1} The city of Warren appeals from a judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas finding R.C. 9.481 constitutionally enacted pursuant to *Page 532 Section 34, Article II, Ohio Constitution and therefore superseding the city's residency requirement, codified in Section 155.05 of the C

662 A.2d 40 (1995) CITY OF PAWTUCKET et al. v. Bruce SUNDLUN et al. CITY OF WOONSOCKET et al. v. Bruce SUNDLUN et al. EAST GREENWICH SCHOOL COMMITTEE et al. v. CITY OF PAWTUCKET et al. Nos. 94-199-Appeal, 94-347-Appeal, Nos. 94-203-M.P., 94-188-M.P. Supreme Court of Rhode Island. July 20, 1995. *41 Stephen

FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF WASHINGTON; STATE OF No. 25-807 ARIZONA; STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE D.C. No. OF OREGON; DELMY FRANCO

266 F.Supp. 354 (1967) Adam Clayton POWELL, Jr., et al., Plaintiffs, v. John W. McCORMACK et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 559-67. United States District Court District of Columbia. April 7, 1967. Certiorari Denied May 29, 1967. Frank D. Reeves, Herbert O. Reid, Sr., Jean Camper Cahn, Washington, D. C., and Robert L. Carter, Hubert T. Delany, Arthur

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Marshall joins, dissenting. Whenever the Court decides a case without the benefit of briefs or argument on the merits, there is a danger that it will issue an opinion without the careful deliberation and explication that the issues require. Today’s “per curiam” opinion is a fair illustration of the problem. The two important issues presented in this case are not even i

BALDOCK, Circuit Judge, dissenting. It is ironic that the capstone of this court’s opinion is a quote from Justice Powell,1 concerning the importance of securing quality education free from “protracted and debilitating battles over court-ordered student transportation.” Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, 413 U.S. 189, 253, 93 S.Ct. 2686, 2719, 37 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973) (Powell, J.,

[Cite as State ex rel. Governing Bd. of Warren Cty. Edn. Serv. Ctr. v. Ohio Dept. of Edn. & Workforce, 2024- Ohio-6061.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO WARREN COUNTY STATE EX REL. GOVERNING : BOARD OF WARREN COUNTY CASE NO. CA2024-06-038 EDUCATIONAL SERVICE CENTER,

Bloom, J. (dissenting). Plaintiffs in all three actions are nonprofit charitable organizations operating under religious auspices. They are under contract with New York City to perform certain social services mandated upon the city. The services which they have contracted to perform are paid for in part through charitable contributions and in part by funding from the city. They seek, by separate actions, to declare invalid Execut

NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge. In this appeal from a decision of the United States Claims Court * on a Tucker Act claim, 28 U.S.C. § 1491, the issues are whether the United States entered into an implied contract to sell land, or became estopped to deny the existence of an