IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT, DARRIN C. RICHMOND
|
|
- Roger Richard
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DARRIN C. RICHMOND CASE NO.: 2012 CV 1786 vs. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE FRANKLIN COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS, TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO and LAMAR ADVERTISING OF YOUNGSTOWN, INC APPELLEES REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT, DARRIN C. RICHMOND WALTER KAUFMANN, ESQ. ( ) BOYD, RUMMELL, CARACH, CURRY, KAUFMANN & BINS-CASTRONOVO CO., LPA P.O. Box 6565 Youngstown, Ohio (330) Counsel for Appellant, Darrin C. Richmond JILL T. O'SHEA, ESQ. ( ) Cohen, Todd, Kite & Stanford, LLC 250 East Fifth Street, Suite 2350 Cincinnati, Ohio Counsel for Appelle, Lamar Advertising of Youngstown, Inc. LAW OFFICES OF BOYD, RUMMELL. CARACH, CURRY,KAUFMANN & SANDRA PINKERTON, ESQ. ( ) Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 22nd Floor Columbus, Ohio Counsel for Appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio BlNSCASTRONOYO CO., L.P. A. FOURTH FLOOR HUNTINGTON BANK BLUG. REPLY TO: P.O. BOX 8565 YOUNGSTOWN. OHIO (330) APR CLERK OF COURT Sl^PPI^NIIIE COCR^^ OF RFI^0 RL APR CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii LAW AND ARGUMENT... PROPOSITION OF LAW I: The Industrial Commission's decision applying a Federal OSHA rule exemption as the basis of denying Darrin Richmond's Ohio specific safety requirement claim is contrary to law and an abuse of discretion PROPOSITION OF LAW II: The Industrial Commission's finding that a portable hook ladder is a part of a"structure" for purposes of O.A.C. 4123: (J) (1) is an illogical grammatical construction of the rule which negates the effect of the rule PROPOSITION OF LAW III The Industrial Commission's decision denying claimant's VSSR application because of his negligence is contrary to law CONCLUSION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases State ex rel. Cotterman vs. Saint Mary Foundry, 46 Ohio State 3d 544 N. E. 2d 877 (1989) State ex rel. Danstar Builders Inc. vs. Industrial Commission 108 Ohio State 3d 318, 2006 Ohio ,8 State ex rel. Gilbert vs. Industrial Commission, 116 Ohio State 3d 243, 2007 Ohio ,6 State ex re. Haines vs. Industrial Commission (1972) 29 Ohio State State ex rel. Howard Eng. & Mfg. Co. v. Industrial Commission (1947), 148 Ohio St. 165, 35 O.O. 183, 74 N. E. 2d State ex rel. Ish vs. Industrial Commission 19 Ohio State 3d 28 (1985)... 5,6,7 State ex rel. Martin Painting and Coating Company vs. Industrial Commission 78 Ohio State 3d 333 (1997), 78 Ohio St 3d 333, 678, N.E. 2d ,7 State ex rel. Morrissey v. Industrial Commission (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 285, 287, 18 OBR 336, 338, 480 N. E. 2d 810, ,7 State ex rel. Roberts vs. Industrial Commission 10 Ohio State 3d (1984)... 6,8 State ex rel. Shelly Company vs. Steigerwald, 121 Ohio State 3d 158, 2009 Ohio ,6 State ex rel. United Foundries, Inc. Industrial Commission 101 Ohio St. 207, 204 Ohio State I 10 State ex rel. U.S. Steel Corporation vs. Cook (1983) 10 Ohio Appellant 3d Ohio 183, 461 N.E. 2d Other Authorities O.A.C. 4123:1-3...:... 2,7 O.A.C : (A) O.A.C : (B)(26) O.A.C. 4123: (J)(1) ,2,7,8 O.A.C. 4121: (E)(4) ,7 ii
4 LAW AND ARGUMENT PROPOSITION OF LAW I: The Industrial Commission's decision applying a Federal OSHA rule exemption as the basis of denying Danin Richmond's Ohio specific safety requirement claim is contrary to law and an abuse of discretion. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION CANNOT RECOGNIZE AN OSHA VARIANCE AS THE BASIS FOR DECIDING A VSSR CLAIM In its reply brief at pages 11 and 12 Lamar argues that, since OAC 4123: (J) (1 ), which requires, that "lifelines and safety belts or harnesses shall be securely fastened to the structure", does not specifically address the billboard industry, the Industrial Commission is free to reach out to OSHA standards or industry standards as the basis for deciding whether Lamar has met the Ohio specific safety requirements. Lamar, however, never mentions OAC 4123: (A) "scope" which includes Lamar, just like any other employer engaged in "construction activities". It states, in part: "(A) Scope The purpose of this code is to provide for life, limb and health of employees engaged in construction activity. Activities within the scope of this code, generally referred to herein as 'construction', include the demolition, dismantling, excavation, construction, erection, alteration, repair, painting, decorating, glazing, cleaning, and pointing of buildings and other structures.... This code covers 'construction' activities of employees whose employer engages in such work as its principal business.... This code shall not apply to the electric utility industry. The term "structure" is not some term of art. It is specifically defined in OAC 4123: ( B) (26) as: "Structure means that which is built or constructed, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work, artificially 1
5 built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner." There is no exception or exemption for the billboard industry in OAC 4123:1-3, the construction regulations. This did not prevent both the Staff Hearing Officer and Magistrate in the lower Court from relying entirely upon the testimony of Brian Conley, the company's only witness, that the billboard industry is different from all other employers covered by OAC 4123:1-3 and; therefore, deserves a special exemption from the requirement of 4123: (J) (1). In fact, the foundation, for their decision was Conley's testimony that the allegedly unique character of the billboard industry allows Lamar to apply an OSHA "Gannett variance" requiring its employees to use a ring on the portable hook ladder as the "anchorage" or "attachment" point, instead of securing the safety lanyard and harness directly to the billboard structure or a lifeline securely fastened to the billboard structure. Lamar and the Attorney General cite the "some evidence" rule in support of their argument. Yet, the only evidence which supports the SHO and lower court decisions is the testimony of Brian Conley. In case there is any question as to what that testimony actually was, he testified on direct examination, at SR276 and 277 as follows: "Question - Are the hook ladders provided by Werner subject to any type of variance or subject to any type of OSHA regulation that you are aware of? Answer - Yeah, I mean, it's the Gannett ReQulationthat OSHA has that's specific for industry that allows the use of hook ladders, and once the hook ladders are engaged on the sign they become part of the structure andyou are allowed to tie off to the anchorage points on the ladder
6 In case there is any question or confusion concerning the substitution of a hook ladder instead of the structure itself as an attachment point, as the OSHA exception, he testified at pages 299 through 305: ""Q. (BY MR. KAUFMANN) With respect to the training materials that was previously referred to on your direct that he signed off on -- A. Uh-huh. Q. - okay, does it not have a section in there that says, in terms of anchorage, an anchorage is a secure attachment point; it must be independent from whatever is supporting or suspending a worker; is that correct? A. That's what it says, yes. Q. In fact, what is supporting Mr. Richmond here is the ladder; is that correct? A. Well, the whole side. I mean, the ladder is part of the structure when it's engaged. Q. Well, wait a minute. What is supporting Mr. Richmond is the ladder; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Because he's up on the ladder; right? A. Uh-huh. Q. Okay. It says it must be independent from whatever is supporting or suspending the worker. How is heindepen independent of the ladder when he is hooked to the ladder? A. I don't know. Q. So how do you have an anchorage that is secure from the attachment point? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. This is from yourown traininclmaterials; right? A. Uh-huh, uh-huh. Q. Okay. It says here, talks about a horizontal lifeline; is that correct? A. Correct. Q. It talks about a self-retracting lifeline; is that correct? A. Uh-huh. Q. - This is from that training material which you used to train Mr. Richmond; right? A. Correct. Q. And it says that it is a portable self-contained device that are attached to an anchorage point above the work area; is that right? A. Correct. Q. Okay. So an anchorage point in this particular case could be that cable that runs across the top of the billboard; right? A. It could be. Q. Right? And then a full-body harness is connected by lifeline to a reel that hangs from an anchorage point; right? 3
7 A. Correct. Q. The anchorage point being the cable on the structure; is that correct? A. If that's what you wanted to do, I mean. Q. Okay. It's not the ladder? That is not an anchorage point? A. We've always considered the anchorage points on the ladder the anchorage points. 0. Okay. But here - - A. Our industry is a unique industry, and that's why, you know, there's variances with OSHA and everything, becausewe're not a factorv. Q. Hang on. A. You know, we're out in the open. So they have, I mean - - MS. OSHEA: Let - - he's testifying. Q. Okay. A. And we follow, you know, nationwide the reg ulations that are set down by OSHA. You know, there's a Gannett variance. So a lot of things - - Q. i want to - - HEARING OFFICER: Let him finish and I'll note your objection. A. I'm just saying that a lot of things that apply to other industries, even OSHA has recognized don't apply to our industrx because of the uniqueness of what we do." The Ohio specific safety requirements do not, however, recognize the billboard industry as a "unique industry" that entitles it to "variances" not available to any other employer in the construction industry. This is not a case of applying "industry standards" to interpret the meaning of Ohio specific safety requirements as found by the Industrial Commission and the lower Court. It is, plain and simple, the application of an alleged OSHA variance as an exception to the Ohio specific safety requirements as the basis for deciding a claim. Contrary to Lamar, even the Attorney General, in its Brief at page 9, correctly recognizes that, under Ohio specific safety requirements, there is nothing unique or special about the billboard industry. The Attorney General stated at page 9: "The Ohio SSR's provide no special exceptions and impose no special requirements for the outdoor advertising industry. 4
8 The Commission must consider whether Lamar, like any other employer, violated any Ohio SSR when construed strictly in Lamar's favor. Burton The OSHA regulations are not inherently part of the SSR's, however, the Commission may consider OSHA regulations, testing, investigation and assessments to determine whether the equipment complies with the essential safety functions prescribed by the SSR's." That is an accurate description of the law in the State of Ohio. It means that, where there are factual disputes as to whether an employer has met an Ohio SSR, an OSHA test or other investigation finding may be considered as evidence to determine whether the employer has met the requirements of the Ohio specific safety regulation. See for example State ex rel. Gilbert vs. Industrial Commission, 116 Ohio State 3d 243, 2007 Ohio 6096, State ex rel. Shelly Company vs. Steigerwald, 121 Ohio State 3d 158, 2009 Ohio 585. This does not mean that the Commission can apply OSHA regulations, which are substantively contrary to, or different from, the Ohio regulations in order to either support or deny a claim. See for example State ex rel. Ish vs. Industrial Commission 19 Ohio State 3d 28 (1985) and State ex rel. Danstar Builders Inc. vs. Industrial Commission, 108 Ohio State 3d 318, 2006 Ohio Having correctly stated the law in Ohio, the Attorney General then either misconstrues or misrepresents Richmond's position with respect to the OSHA regulations in this case. The attorney general further argues at page 9: "Richmond misapplies the holding in Roberts and cites the off misquoted Roberts decision for the proposition that anything from OSHA is always irrelevant in consideration of a VSSR award". Nowhere, at the Industrial Commission; in the lower Court; or in this Court has Richmond ever argued that OSHA is always irrelevant in any consideration of a VSSR award. The record in this case will bear out the fact that Richmond has always argued; at the Industrial Commission; in the lower Cburt; and in this Court 5
9 that it is unlawful for the Industrial Commission to use as the basis for deciding a VSSR application an OSHA regulation which contradicts; substantively adds to; or subtracts from, the language of an Ohio specific safety requirement. That is the import of State ex rel. Roberts vs. Industrial Commission, 10 Ohio State 3d (1984). In all its earlier cases this Court has recognized that there is crucial difference between considering OSHA test results; manufacturers instructions or private industry standards as part of the evidence to determine whether a violation of a specific safety requirement has occurred, and simply engrafting such manufacturers, industry or OSHA standards to redefine, or add to, the plain language of an Ohio specific safety requirement. Compare for example Gilbert, Shelly and State ex rel. Martin Painting and Coating Company vs. Industrial Commission 78 Ohio State 3d 333 (1997), State ex rel.!sh and State ex rel. G&S Metal Products, Inc. difference: In G&S Metal Products at pages 475 and 476 this Court explained that "State ex rel. Ish v. Industr'ral Comm. (1985), 19 Ohio St. 3d 28, 19 OBR 24, 482 N.E. 2d 941, justifies G & S's strict reading of SSRs, holding that an employer does not commit a VSSR by failing to comply with industry standards that neither the General Assembly nor the commission has adopted. We have held that SSRs must "forewarn the employer and establish a standard which [the employer] may follow." State ex rel. Howard eng. & Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1947), 148 Ohio St. 165, 35 O.O. 183, 74 N.E. 2d 201, paragraph one of the syllabus. Ohio Adm. Code 4121: (E)(4) simply does not require maintenance inspections on a weekly basis. If we were to read a weekly inspection requirement into the rule, we would unfairly dispense with the notice requirement. Moreover, the commission has promulgated SSRs that specifically incorporate manufacturer instructions requiring inspection and repair of certain industrial equipment, see State ex rel. Morrissey v. Indus. Comm. (1985), 18 Ohio St. 3d 285, 287, 18 OBR 336, 6
10 338, 480 N.E. 2d 810, 812 (administrative rule required that portable explosive-actuated fastening tools be "repaired in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications"), but Ohio Adm. Code 4121:1-5-11(E)(4) is not such a rule. Thus, by imposing the duty Moore proposes, we would also encroach upon the commission's rulemaking authority. This is not to say, however, that the commission can never consult manufacturer specifications in evaluating an employer's compliance with SSRs. As the court of appeals recognized, a manufacturer's manual is sometimes relevant to the requirement. Thus, in State ex rel. Martin Painting & Coating Co. v. Indus. Comm. (1997), 78 Ohio St 3d 333, 678 N.E.2d 206, we approved of the commission's consideration of manufacturer specifications for the proper construction of a scaffold required by an SSR." The Attorney General's argument blurs this crucial difference. In this case the Industrial Commission stepped over the line. It did not make its decision as a "fact finder" or "interpreter" of the applicable specific safety requirement. ]t based its decision instead on an alleged OSHA Gannett variance, which allegedly excepts_lamar from the explicit safety requirement to attach the safety equipment to the billboard structure itself, rather than to whatever is supporting or suspending a worker, namely a portable hook ladder. AII employers covered by OAC 4123:1-3, except the electric utility industry, must follow the clear and concise language of OAC 4123: (J)(1) which is mandatory. It states: "Lifelines, safety belts, or harnesses, and Ianyards shall be provided by the employer Lifelines and safety belts or harnesses shall be securely fastened to the structure " A strict reading of this language in combination with a specific safety regulation definition of "structure" explicitly forewarns Lamar of exactly what must be done. (See!sh and G & S Metal) The clear and explicit language of the regulation does not allow the substitution of a portable hook ladder for the "structure" as an attachment point. 7
11 The facts of this case demonstrate why this Ohio Specific safety requirement mandates attachment to the structure itself. The reason the harness and lanyard must be attached either to the structure directly or to a lifeline secured to the structure is that, if the worker slips and falls or if a ladder, platform or scaffold which is supporting the worker becomes dislodged or falls, the worker is tethered to the building or structure and does not fall to the ground. Neither the company nor the Attorney General has cited any variance or exception for the billboard industry allowing it to require its employees to substitute a portable hook ladder as an attachment point, as argued by Lamar at the Industrial Commission and in the lower Court. The Industrial Commission decision is in conflict with Roberts, Danstar and the recent cases concerning those areas where OSHA test results; private industry standards; or manufacturers instructions can be considered as evidence in factually determining whether an employer has met the requirements of an Ohio SSR. None of these cases allow the Industrial Commission to apply OSHA, or other standards which vary from, or, in essence, redefine an Ohio SSR. PROPOSITION OF LAW II: The lndustrial Commission's finding that a portable hook ladder is a part of a "structure" for purposes of O.A.C. 4123: (J) (1) is an illogical grammatical construction of the rule which negates the effect of the rule. A PORTABLE HOOK LADDER HUNG OVER A BILLBOARD IS NOT A PART OF THE STRUCTURE At the outset, it must be recognized that the purpose for the VSSR requirements if to provide reasonable safety: therefore, any interpretation of the regulations must meet that threshold criteria. See State ex re1. Haines vs. 8
12 Industria! Commission (1972) 29 Ohio State 15. When the OSHA variance is properly removed from consideration in this case, Lamar is left the argument that, "the hook ladder becomes part of the structure" (See Lamar Brief at page 18) and the Commission is left with the argument that, "an ordinarily portable ladder securely attached to a structure becomes a fixed ladder within the meeting of VSSR". (See Commission Brief page 11). Neither Lamar, nor the Commission explains how this magical transformation takes place, especially given the facts of this case. Gertrude Stein, a writer, accurately observed, "a Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose." It is not a petunia. Likewise, a portable hook ladder is not a fixed ladder as defined by the specific safety requirements, namely, "a ladder permanently attached to a structure, building, or equipment". How does an "ordinarily portable ladder" become a "fixed ladder" unless it is, "permanently attached to the structure?" How does a portable ladder become, "part of the billboard structure" unless, under the Ohio SSR definition of "structure", it is "built or constructed" into the billboard itself? Why would Lamar base its argument on the application of an OSHA variance unless knew that_hooking to the ladder as the attachment point did not meet the Ohio requirements? Finally, how is the fall arrest purpose of the Ohio requirements, which is designed to prevent the worker from falling off a ladder, plafform, scaffold, or other part of the building satisfied by requiring the worker to hook his fall arrest equipment onto the portable ladder he is standing on? It is simply illogical to hold that the ladder which slid off a structure and pulled Richmond off the billboard and to the ground can be redefined as a "fixed ladder" or part of the "structure". The fatal flaw of this reasoning is demonstrated by the facts of this case. The billboard had, as part of the "structure" a ladder 9
13 actually built into the billboard, which was used to access the catwalk at the bottom edge of the billboard. This is a fixed ladder. This billboard also had two metal lifeline cables, one along the catwalk and one across the top, rear of the billboard. Both were securely and permanently fastened to the billboard frame. These are secure attachment points to the structure. A portable ladder which, by its very nature must be moved by the employee across the billboard does not transform into a fixed ladder as soon as it hung over the top of the billboard. If that were the case, it would, by definition, never slip off the rounded edge of the billboard, as it did in this case. The mere labeling of a hook ladder as a fixed ladder, or labeling a hook ladder as part of the structure does not make it so under the specific safety requirements. For purposes of interpreting and applying the specific safety requirements, the Industrial Commission must fulfill the essential safety functions of the regulations. In that regard, common sense must prevail. See for example State ex rel. United Foundries vs. lndusfrial Commission 101 Ohio State 3d 207, 204 Ohio 704. It is unlawful for the Industrial Commission to negate the application of an Ohio SSR by redefining a rose as a petunia. For the foregoing reasons, the Industrial Commission decision holding that the portable hook ladder is part of the structure must be reversed, and the decision based on that finding must be overturned. PROPOSITION OF LAW III The Industrial Commission's decision denying claimant's VSSR application because of his negligence is contrary to law. UNILATERAL NEGLIGENCE CANNOT BE INVOKED AS A DEFENSE UNLESS THE EMPLOYER HAS FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIFIC SAFETY REQUIREMENT 10
14 A major purpose of the safety requirements, such as the fall arrest system in this case making use of lifelines, lanyards, and harnesses is to prevent injury where an employee is careless negligent, ignorant or even stupid. The threshold issue is always whether the employer met the safety requirement. See for example State ex rel. United State Steel vs. Cook (1983) 10 Ohio Appellant 3d 183, 461 N.E. 2d 916 and State ex rel. Cotterman vs. Saint Mary Foundry, 46 Ohio State 3d 544 N.E. 2d 877 (1989). In this case, the presence, non-presence, or position of the ladder stop on the billboard is a non-issue. Whether Richmond was negligent in placing his ladder outside the ladder stop is a non-issue. Whether Lamar was negligent in placing the ladder stop four to five feet from the edge of the billboard is a non-issue. If Lamar had provided the means to allow Richmond to attach his lanyard to the billboard, or to a lifeline at the top of the billboard, instead of requiring him to attach to the ring on the hook ladder, there would have been no injury when the ladder slipped off the edge. That is the purpose of the Ohio SSR requiring the attachment to the structure itself. Had he been attached to the structure, the fall arrest purpose would have operated exactly as intended namely, to protect Richmond from fafling-to the ground, even if he was negligent in the placement of his ladder. Since Lamar never met the letter, or the spirit of the Ohio SSR for fall arrest protection there can be no consideration of alleged unilateral negligence. CONCLUSION The OSHA variance cannot be applied to vary the language of an Ohio SSR; therefore, the Industrial Commission decision must be reversed. The Industrial Commission's redefinition of hook ladder as a fixed ladder or structure is 11
15 contrary to the plain meaning of the Ohio SSR and is an abuse of discretion. The decision based on this redefinition must be reversed. Respectfully submitted, BOYD, RUMMELL, CARACH, CURRY, KAUFMANN & BINS-CASTRONOVO CO, LPA Walter Kaufmann ( ) Huntington Bank Building P.O. Box 6565 Youngstown, OH Attorney for Appellant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Merit Brief of Appellant, Darrin.^ ` C. Richmond was served this day of, 20Z _, by regular U.S. mail service upon: Jill T. O'Shea, Esq. Cohen, Todd, Kite & Stanford, LLC 250 E. Fifth Street, Suite 1200 Cincinnati, Ohio Counsel for Appellee, Lamar Advertising of Youngstown, Inc. and Sandra Pinkerton, Esq. ( ) Assistant Attorney General 150 East Gay Street, 22"d Floor Columbus, Ohio Counsel for Appellee, Industrial Commission of Ohio Walter Kaufmann ( ) Attorney for Appellant 12
11 L. '02 Zd. 31n ttje ^&upremce Court of Yjio
31n ttje ^&upremce Court of Yjio STATE of OHIO, ex rel. DARRIN C. RICHMOND, vs. Appellant, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, et al., Case No. 2012-1786 On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. Armstrong Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Indus. Comm., 2014-Ohio-2616.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [State of Ohio ex rel.] : Armstrong Steel Erectors, Inc.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. Danstar Builders v. Indus. Comm., 2005-Ohio-365.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. Danstar Builders, Inc., : Relator, : v. : No. 04AP-309 Industrial
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Arce v. Indus. Comm., 105 Ohio St.3d 90, 2005-Ohio-572.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Arce v. Indus. Comm., 105 Ohio St.3d 90, 2005-Ohio-572.] THE STATE EX REL. ARCE, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Arce v. Indus.
More informationTENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. A.J. Rose Mfg. Co. v. Indus. Comm., 2012-Ohio-4367.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio ex rel. A.J. Rose Manufacturing Company, Relator, v. No.
More informationCi.ERK i.r; i;l)ll^?t SUPREME COUR! OF Uti10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO. 2010-1283 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. RICK D. WARNER, Relator-Appellee, -vs- INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, et al. Respondents- Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN COUNTY
More informationL E. ORtGiNAL APR CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Case No OHIOTELNET.COM, Inc.
ORtGiNAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO OHIOTELNET.COM, Inc. Appellants, V. The Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, Case No. 12-0027 Appeal from the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio Public Utilities
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. Ruscilli v. Indus. Comm., 2010-Ohio-4126.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. Ruscilli Construction : Company, Inc., : Relator, : No. 09AP-1006
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Parks v. Indus. Comm. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 22.] Workers compensation Specific safety requirements Workshop and factory
[Cite as State ex rel. Parks v. Indus. Comm., 85 Ohio St.3d 22, 1999-Ohio-200.] THE STATE EX REL. PARKS, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as State ex rel. Parks v. Indus.
More informationThe Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, et al. v. Brunner, Jennifer, etc.
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 THE NORTHEAST OHIO ) 4 COALITION FOR THE ) HOMELESS, ET AL., ) 5 ) Plaintiffs, ) 6 ) vs. ) Case No. C2-06-896 7 ) JENNIFER BRUNNER,
More informationFTE D. FEB U CLERK pf COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO CASE NO REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT-RESPONDENT GIUSEPPE GULLOTTA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO GIUSEPPE GULLOTTA, Appellant-Respondent, V. CASE NO. 10-0636 AKRON PAINT & VARNISH, et al., Appellees-Relators. REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT-RESPONDENT GIUSEPPE GULLOTTA Ross R.
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Bishop v. Waterbeds N Stuff, Inc., 94 Ohio St.3d 105, 2002-Ohio-62.]
[Cite as State ex rel. Bishop v. Waterbeds N Stuff, Inc., 94 Ohio St.3d 105, 2002-Ohio-62.] THE STATE EX REL. BISHOP, APPELLEE, v. WATERBEDS N STUFF, INC., APPELLANT; INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE.
More informationFILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 02/14/ :36 PM INDEX NO /2014E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 269 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/14/2017
1 of 20 2 of 20 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BRONX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------X SAID VENTURA LUNA, Infant-Plaintiff by his mother
More informationSLIP OPINION NO OHIO- THE STATE EX REL. SUNESIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, APPELLANT,
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State ex rel. Sunesis Constr. Co. v. Indus. Comm., Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-.] NOTICE This slip opinion is
More informationSaavedra v 64 Annfield Court Corp NY Slip Op 30068(U) January 13, 2014 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: /11 Judge: Joseph J.
Saavedra v 64 Annfield Court Corp. 2014 NY Slip Op 30068(U) January 13, 2014 Supreme Court, Richmond County Docket Number: 104474/11 Judge: Joseph J. Maltese Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION Andrew Cichon and Susan Cichon, Plaintiffs, v. Steele and Loeber Lumber Co., Metropolitan Lumber Co., Cook County Lumber Co.,
More information1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, )
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 3 DEPARTMENT 9 HON. DENISE MOTTER, COMMISSIONER 4 5 CHRISTINE SONTAG, ) ) 6 PLAINTIFF, ) ) 7 VS. ) NO. 1381216 ) 8 WILLIAM
More information[Cite as State ex rel. Petrie v. Atlas Iron Processors, Inc. (1999), Ohio St.3d. (No Submitted January 26, 1999 Decided April 28, 1999.
THE STATE EX REL. PETRIE, APPELLANT, v. ATLAS IRON PROCESSORS, INC.; INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, APPELLEE. [Cite as State ex rel. Petrie v. Atlas Iron Processors, Inc. (1999), Ohio St.3d.] Workers compensation
More informationSTATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY Branch 9
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY Branch FILED 0-0-1 CIRCUIT COURT DANE COUNTY, WI 1CV000 AMY LYNN PHOTOGRAPHY STUDIO, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 1 CV CITY OF MADISON, et al., Defendants.
More informationKRESSE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION 3 CASE NO. 09-49079CA22 4 5 WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, F.S.D. F/K/A WORLD SAVINGS BANK,
More informationJu^ 18 Ndd CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. State of Ohio, ex rel. David E. Hina, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO State of Ohio, ex rel. David E. Hina, Appellee, -vs- Industrial Commission of Ohio, et. al., Appellants. On Appeal from the Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY
[Cite as Ross Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Roop, 2011-Ohio-1748.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY : COMMISSIONERS OF ROSS : Case No. 10CA3161 COUNTY, OHIO,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. Lott v. Indus. Comm., 2010-Ohio-2063.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio ex rel. John H. Lott, : Relator, : v. : No. 09AP-407 Industrial Commission
More informationHAHN & BOWERSOCK FAX KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPT 24 HON. ROBERT L. HESS, JUDGE BAT WORLD SANCTUARY, ET AL, PLAINTIFF, VS MARY CUMMINS, DEFENDANT. CASE NO.: BS140207 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
More informationCase 3:13-cv REP-LO-AD Document Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 5505 EXHIBIT V
Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-D Document 232-22 Filed 0/18/15 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 5505 EXHIBIT V Case 3:13-cv-00678-REP-LO-D Document 232-22 Filed 0/18/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 5506 IN THE UNITED STTES DISTRICT
More informationuia 3ju the '*upreme Court of Yjio CLE0 O^ COURT ^^PRBA,^ ^^^^^ OF OHIO Case No STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. CHARLES WYRICK, Appellant,
^. -^ - 3ju the '*upreme Court of Yjio STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. CHARLES WYRICK, vs. Appellant, Case No. 2012-1670 On appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, Ohio, Tenth Appellate District,
More informationCITY OF YORKTON BYLAW NO. 9/1997
CITY OF YORKTON BYLAW NO. 9/1997 Disclaimer: This information has been provided solely for research convenience. Official bylaws are available from the Office of the City Clerk and must be consulted for
More informationUSCA No UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, SANTANA DRAPEAU, Appellant.
==================================================================== IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT USCA No. 14-3890 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. SANTANA DRAPEAU,
More informationInaction in the Face of Serious Safety Risk Amounts to Criminal Negligence for Metron Supervisor
OHS & Workers Compensation Commentary for Management OCTOBER 13, 2015 Inaction in the Face of Serious Safety Risk Amounts to Criminal Negligence for Metron Supervisor Authors: Jeremy Warning and Cheryl
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION
0 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS: COUNTY OF C O O K ) IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CRIMINAL DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE ) OF ILLINOIS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) No. CR 0-0
More informationD)' FE6: 17 I0,09 c^^^ae<q^^cow^^ S0lPRENfE GO.ll(tr QF, GERG. Case No: Appellee, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. James M.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO James M. DeAscentis, Case No: 09-0288 V. Appellee, (On Appeal from Franklin County Court of Appeals, Tenth Appellate District, Case No. 08AP-522) Vincent J. Margello, et al.,
More information2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
1 1 V I R G I N I A: 2 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND 3 4 THE BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE, INC., a 5 Virginia corporation, 6 PEOPLE'S ALLIANCE FOR CLEAN ENERGY, a chapter of Blue
More informationKempisty v 246 Spring St., LLC 2010 NY Slip Op 33254(U) November 17, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /07 Judge: Martin
Kempisty v 246 Spring St., LLC 2010 NY Slip Op 33254(U) November 17, 2010 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 107465/07 Judge: Martin Shulman Republished from New York State Unified Court System's
More informationSoriano v St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland Inc NY Slip Op 33073(U) December 21, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number:
Soriano v St. Mary's Indian Orthodox Church of Rockland Inc. 2012 NY Slip Op 33073(U) December 21, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 106667/2011 Judge: Eileen A. Rakower Republished from
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT CASE NO. 12-CA-0032
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS, NINTH APPELLATE DISTRICT APPELLATE COURT CASE NO. 12-CA-0032 WAYNE COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TRIAL COURT CASE NO. 12-CV-0124 KATHRYN KICK, as the personal representative of
More informationMEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANT CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC.'S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JURISDICTION
JAY DUNKELMAN, et al. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO V. Pla i ntiffs-appel lees. On Appeal from the Hamilton County : Court of Appeals, First Appellate Judicial District THE CINCINNATI BENGALS, INC. Defendant-Appellant
More informationWORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT (CHAPTER 354A) WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH (WORK AT HEIGHTS) REGULATIONS 2013
WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT (CHAPTER 354A) WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEALTH (WORK AT HEIGHTS) REGULATIONS 2013 In exercise of the powers conferred by section 65 of the Workplace Safety and Health Act, Mr
More informationCHAPTER IV. BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
CHAPTER IV. BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION Article 1. Fire Limits Article 2. Building Code Article 3. Electrical Code Article 4. Plumbing and Gas-Fitting Code Article 5. Moving Buildings Article 6. Dangerous
More informationAUQ 2 0 2oo9 CLERK OF COURT SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Appellee. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO No and No GEORGE SULLIVAN
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO No. 2008-0691 and No. 2008-0817 GEORGE SULLIVAN Appellee V. ANDERSON TOWNSHIP, et al. On Appeal from the Haniilton County Court of Appeals First Appellate District Court of
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO CC-002S8 c;oii-~ TERRY H. LOGAN, SR. AND BEVERLY W. LOGAN CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI CASE NO. 2013-CC-002S8 c;oii-~ TERRY H. LOGAN, SR. AND BEVERLY W. LOGAN 1PELLANTS V. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORT A TION COMMISSION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS
[Cite as State v. Phillips, 2014-Ohio-5309.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, ) ) CASE NO. 14 MA 34 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) ) - VS - ) OPINION ) KEITH
More informationKlamka v Brooks Shopping Ctrs., LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 33446(U) March 5, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2008 Judge: Carol R.
Klamka v Brooks Shopping Ctrs., LLC 2012 NY Slip Op 33446(U) March 5, 2012 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 114494/2008 Judge: Carol R. Edmead Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More information1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 17TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: CACE
Page: 1 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA 2 CASE NO.: CACE090039 3 4 U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR SASCO 05-WF4, 5 Plaintiff(s), 6 vs.
More informationGalvez v Columbus 95th St. LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 32427(U) November 21, 2016 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: Judge: Sharon A.M.
Galvez v Columbus 95th St. LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 32427(U) November 21, 2016 Supreme Court, Bronx County Docket Number: 300059-2013 Judge: Sharon A.M. Aarons Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e.,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Raines, 2015-Ohio-5089.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State of Ohio, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 15AP-477 (C.P.C. No. 14CR-3827) v. : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Dawn
More informationMAY MARCIA J MEII4GEL, CLERK SUPREME COUR'f OF OHIO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. Appellee, KEVIN JOHNSON
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO STATE OF OHIO CASE NO. 2006-2154 -vs- Appellee, On Appeal from the Court of Appeals Twelfth Appellate District uutier county, unio KEVIN JOHNSON Appellant. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO CA XXXX MB
9708 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 50 2008 CA 040969XXXX MB THE BANK OF NEW YORK TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR CHASEFLEX TRUST SERIES 2007-3,
More informationPaul v Samuels 2011 NY Slip Op 30513(U) February 23, 2011 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 26700/2008 Judge: Howard G.
Paul v Samuels 2011 NY Slip Op 30513(U) February 23, 2011 Supreme Court, Queens County Docket Number: 26700/2008 Judge: Howard G. Lane Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service.
More informationRast v Wachs Rome Dev., LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 30999(U) April 15, 2011 Supreme Court, Wyoming County Docket Number: Judge: Mark H.
Rast v Wachs Rome Dev., LLC 2011 NY Slip Op 30999(U) April 15, 2011 Supreme Court, Wyoming County Docket Number: 42372 Judge: Mark H. Dadd Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts
More informationyousuf40111 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION BASHE ABDI YOUSUF, et al.,. Civil Action No. 1:04cv1360. Plaintiffs,.. vs.. Alexandria, Virginia. April 1, 2011 MOHAMED
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO CA 32. STATE OF OHIO MOTOR VEHICLES : (Civil Appeal from...
[Cite as Walt's Auto, Inc. v. Ohio Motor Vehicles Salvage Dealers Licensing Bd., 2002-Ohio-6085.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO WALT S AUTO, INC. : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO.
More informationMorrow, Gordon & Byrd, Ltd 10 West Broad Street, Suite W. Main Street, P.O. Box 4190 Columbus, OH Newark, OH
[Cite as Ohiotelnet.com, Inc. v. Windstream Ohio, Inc., 2012-Ohio-5969.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OHIOTELNET.COM, INC., ET AL Plaintiff-Appellant -vs- WINDSTREAM OHIO,
More informationSafety & Risk Management
Safety & Risk Management (B) Construction Safety Law http://www.mom.gov.sg/legislation/ occupational-safetyhealth/pages/default.aspx ACTS Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA) Workplace Safety and Health
More informationDep't of Buildings v. 67 Greenwich Street, New York County OATH Index No. 1666/09 (Apr. 10, 2009)
Dep't of Buildings v. 67 Greenwich Street, New York County OATH Index No. 1666/09 (Apr. 10, 2009) Undisputed evidence at zoning violation proceeding established that property was being used for impermissible
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Everett v. Parma Hts., 2013-Ohio-5314.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99611 RENEE EVERETT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS vs.
More information[Cite as Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co. (1998), Ohio St.3d.] Employer and employee Employer requires employee to perform a dangerous
HANNAH, ADMR., APPELLANT, v. DAYTON POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, APPELLEE. [Cite as Hannah v. Dayton Power & Light Co. (1998), Ohio St.3d.] Employer and employee Employer requires employee to perform a dangerous
More information2 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 3 Respondents, ) ) 4 vs. ) No. SC ) 5 STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 6 Appellants. )
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI 2 JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 3 Respondents, ) ) 4 vs. ) No. SC 88038 ) 5 STATE OF MISSOURI, et al., ) ) 6 Appellants. ) 7 8 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COLE COUNTY,
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 18, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed March 18, 2015 - Case No. 2015-0303 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO R. LOTUS JUSTICE, et al., Relators, Case No. 2015-0303 v. UNITED STATES, et al., Respondents.
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Solomon v. Marc Glassman, Inc., 2013-Ohio-1420.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) TORSHA SOLOMON C.A. No. 26456 Appellant v. MARC GLASSMAN,
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
[Cite as Reynolds v. Crockett Homes, Inc., 2009-Ohio-1020.] STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT DANIEL REYNOLDS, et al., ) ) CASE NO. 08 CO 8 PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
More informationLittering Statutes for Political Candidates in North Carolina
2016 SIGN ORDINANCE INFORMATION Littering Statutes for Political Candidates in North Carolina 14-156. Injuring fixtures and other property of electric-power companies. It shall be unlawful for any person
More informationSTATE OF ILLINOIS ) ) SS.
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 STATE OF ILLINOIS SS. COUNTY OF COOK IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY COUNTY DEPARTMENT-CRIMINAL DIVISION THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Case No. 1 CR -01 Plaintiff, VS RYNE SANHAMEL,
More informationCase 2:12-cv WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 1 of 25. Exhibit C
Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 1 of 25 Exhibit C Case 2:12-cv-00262-WCO Document 16-3 Filed 04/06/13 Page 2 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA
More information604 Huntington Plaza STEPHEN W. FUNK 220 Market Aenue, South 222 South Main Street Canton, OH Suite 400 Akron, OH 44308
[Cite as Reynolds v. Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth., 2009-Ohio-567.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER S. REYNOLDS -vs- Plaintiff-Appellant AKRON-CANTON REGIONAL
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as Fedarko v. Cleveland, 2014-Ohio-2531.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100223 SALLY A. FEDARKO, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES
More informationCITY OF KINGSTON. Ontario. By-Law Number A By-Law To Regulate Fences. By-Law Number: Date Passed: September 9, 2014
CITY OF KINGSTON Ontario By-Law Number 2003-405 A By-Law To Regulate Fences Passed: November 4, 2003 As Amended By By-Law Number: By-Law Number: Date Passed: 2014-140 September 9, 2014 (Office Consolidation)
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as State ex rel. R&L Carriers Shared Serv., L.L., v. Indus. Comm., Franklin, 2005-Ohio-6372.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. R&L Carriers : Shared Services,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI NO CA-00702
E-Filed Document Jun 6 2017 16:14:50 2016-CA-00702-COA Pages: 9 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2016-CA-00702 RICHARD COLL APPELLANT VERSUS WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY
More informationSTATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT CV WILLIAM TURNER, Plaintiff, vs.
0 0 STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF DONA ANA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT WILLIAM TURNER, vs. Plaintiff, CV-0- ROZELLA BRANSFORD, et al., Defendants. TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS On the th day of November 0, at
More informationThe Due Process Advocate
The Due Process Advocate No Person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law - Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution Vol. 15 No. 2 www.dueprocessadvocate.com
More informationFRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, : DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
[Cite as Donini v. Fraternal Order of Police, 2009-Ohio-5810.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT SCIOTO COUNTY MARTY V. DONINI, Plaintiff-Appellee, : Case No. 08CA3251 vs. : FRATERNAL
More information[Cite as Ahmad v. AK Steel Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-4082.]
[Cite as Ahmad v. AK Steel Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-4082.] AHMAD, APPELLANT, v. AK STEEL CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Ahmad v. AK Steel Corp., 119 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-4082.]
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
[Cite as Marlboro Twp. Zoning Inspector v. Reber, 2005-Ohio-1485.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MARLBORO TOWNSHIP ZONING INSPECTOR JUDGES W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS CASE NO
[Cite as Feichtner v. Kalmbach Feeds, Inc., 2004-Ohio-6048.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT WYANDOT COUNTY DEBORAH FEICHTNER, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS CASE NO. 16-04-09 v. KALMBACH
More informationCourt of Claims of Ohio
[Cite as Day v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., Dist. 8, 2011-Ohio-6906.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us
More informationRacanelli v Jemsa Realty, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33114(U) December 3, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2014 Judge: Carol R.
Racanelli v Jemsa Realty, LLC 2018 NY Slip Op 33114(U) December 3, 2018 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 160119/2014 Judge: Carol R. Edmead Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013
More informationALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 08/05/2011 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More informationCase 3:15-cv HEH-RCY Document Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID# Exhibit D
Case 3:15-cv-00357-HEH-RCY Document 139-4 Filed 02/05/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1828 Exhibit D Case 3:15-cv-00357-HEH-RCY Document 139-4 Filed 02/05/16 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 1829 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationSupreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed May 15, Case No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO * * * * * * * * * *
Supreme Court of Ohio Clerk of Court - Filed May 15, 2015 - Case No. 2015-0615 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO DELLA WALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. THE KROGER CO., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal No. 15-0615 Appeal
More informationArmstrong & Okey, Inc., Columbus, Ohio (614)
Case: 2:14-cv-00404-PCE-NMK Doc #: 64-4 Filed: 08/07/14 Page: 1 of 41 PAGEID #: 4277 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION - - - Ohio State Conference of : the
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI)
PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 15-1988 IN RE: ASBESTOS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (NO. VI) Steven Frankenberger, Special Administrator for the Estate of Howard
More informationAUTO CONNECTION, LLC LONNIE PRATHER
[Cite as Auto Connection, L.L.C. v. Prather, 2011-Ohio-6644.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION Nos. 96564 and 96736 AUTO CONNECTION, LLC PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO. MELISSA ARBINO, Case No
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO MELISSA ARBINO, Case No. 2006-1212 Petitioner, -vs- JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Respondents. AMICUS BRIEF OF THE OHIO CHAPTER OF THE AMERCIAN BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCATES IN SUPPORT
More informationIN THE SUPREIVIE COURT OF OHIO. Case No.: On Appeal From the Court of Appeals Eleventh Appellate District Geauga County, Ohio
^^^ ^ 7n, ^"^ ^Y^^ ^^ ^ IN THE SUPREIVIE COURT OF OHIO Case No.: 2013-0505 On Appeal From the Court of Appeals Eleventh Appellate District Geauga County, Ohio HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as Trustee
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Dorothy J. Long and Industrial : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Commission of Ohio, : Respondents.
[Cite as State ex rel. Angell Mfg. Co. v. Long, 2003-Ohio-6469.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT State ex rel. : Angell Manufacturing Company, : Relator, : v. No. 02AP-1389 Dorothy
More informationBEFORE THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Public Notice Proposed Rulemaking Governing Diesel School Bus Retrofit Grant Rules
BEFORE THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Public Notice Proposed Rulemaking Governing Diesel School Bus Retrofit Grant Rules Notice is hereby given that the Director of Environmental Protection,
More information[Cite as State ex rel. George v. Indus. Comm., 130 Ohio St.3d 405, 2011-Ohio-6036.]
[Cite as State ex rel. George v. Indus. Comm., 130 Ohio St.3d 405, 2011-Ohio-6036.] THE STATE EX REL. GEORGE, APPELLEE, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS. [Cite as State ex rel. George
More information1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 * * * 4 NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION. 5 FOR THE HOMELESS, et al.
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Page 1 2 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 3 * * * 4 NORTHEAST OHIO COALITION 5 FOR THE HOMELESS, et al., 6 Plaintiffs, 7 vs. CASE NO. C2-06-896 8 JENNIFER BRUNNER,
More informationSANDRA HAVEL VILLA ST. JOSEPH, ET AL.
[Cite as Havel v. St. Joseph, 2010-Ohio-5251.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94677 SANDRA HAVEL vs. PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE VILLA ST. JOSEPH,
More information[Cite as State v. Mullins, 2002-Ohio-5181.] STATE OF OHIO, HARRISON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
[Cite as State v. Mullins, 2002-Ohio-5181.] STATE OF OHIO, HARRISON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, ) ) CASE NO. 01-534 CA PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ) ) - VS - ) OPINION ) TIM
More informationPLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
ll>.'f.i. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO r.` r C^.^a Angela R. Granata, pro se Plaintiff-Appellant Case No. 2014-0157 FULL PANEL REVIEW REQUESTED vs John Stamatakos, et al. Defendants-Appellee Appeal from
More information[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Codeluppi, Slip Opinion No Ohio-1574.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Codeluppi, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1574.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision
More informationIN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY LEANDRO TLAPECHCO, v. Plaintiff, HANDLER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, FH WEST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
More information31tt the 6upremce Court of OYjio
31tt the 6upremce Court of OYjio,M41 STATE OF OHIO, ex rel. PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA, vs. Relator-Appellant, INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, et al., Case No. 2012-1057 On Appeal from the Franklin
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Samantha Bishop, Administratrix of the Estate of James Bishop, Jr. and Virginia Bishop On appeal from the Hamilton County Court of Appeals Appellant, First Appellate District
More informationMISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 5 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ARTICLE 501 MAINTENANCE PERMIT FOR OUTDOOR SIGNS 28-501.1 Permit required. The commissioner may, in his or her discretion, when necessary in the public interest, establish
More informationARTICLE 17 SIGNS AND AWNINGS REGULATIONS
CHAPTER 165 ARTICLE 17 SIGNS AND AWNINGS REGULATIONS Section 1. INTENT. The intent of this Article is to promote the health, safety, prosperity, aesthetics and general welfare of the community by providing
More information[Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.]
[Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.] THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, v. JOHNSON, APPELLEE. [Cite as State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107, 2010-Ohio-6301.] Criminal law R.C. 2901.21
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 105 Article 21 1
Article 21. Review and Appeals of Listings and Valuations. 105-322. County board of equalization and review. (a) Personnel. Except as otherwise provided herein, the board of equalization and review of
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) Vs. Defendant.
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON, JUDGE PRESIDING 0 TODD KIMSEY, Plaintiff, Vs. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS, Defendant. No. CV - PA REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF STATUS CONFERENCE
More information