Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case history; Prior: Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zauderer, 10 Ohio St. 3d 44, 461 N.E.2d 883 (1984); probable jurisdiction noted, 469 U.S. 813 (1984).: Holding; A State may require advertisers to include "purely factual and uncontroversial" disclosures without violating the First Amendment rights of the advertiser as long as the disclosure is in the State's interest in preventing ...
The Ohio Revised Code (ORC) contains all current statutes of the Ohio General Assembly of a permanent and general nature, consolidated into provisions, titles, chapters and sections. [1] However, the only official publication of the enactments of the General Assembly is the Laws of Ohio ; the Ohio Revised Code is only a reference.
Class certified, granted summary judgment to defendants, Levinson v. Basic Inc., No. C79-1220, 1984 WL 1152 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 3, 1984), reversed, 786 F.2d 741 (6th Cir. 1986); cert. granted, 479 U.S. 1083 (1987). Holding; Plaintiffs are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reliance in a 10b-5 case, based on a fraud-on-the-market theory. Court ...
These are published in the official Laws of Ohio and are called "session laws". [2] These in turn have been codified in the Ohio Revised Code. [3] The only official publication of the enactments of the General Assembly is the Laws of Ohio; the Ohio Revised Code is only a reference. [4]
Standard 14-1.6. Determining factual basis of plea (a) In accepting a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court should make such inquiry as may be necessary to satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea. As part of its inquiry, the defendant may be asked to state on the record whether he or she agrees with, or in the case of a ...
The Ohio Court of Claims is a court of limited, statewide jurisdiction. The court's jurisdiction extends to matters in which the State of Ohio is a party and the state has waived its sovereign immunity by statute, and also hears appeals from decisions made by the Ohio Attorney General on claims allowed under the Victims of Crime Act.
Ohio v. Clark , 576 U.S. 237 (2015), is United States Supreme Court case opinion that narrowed the standard set in Crawford v. Washington for determining whether hearsay statements in criminal cases are permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment .
Negligent misstatement is not strictly part of the law of misrepresentation, but is a tort based upon the 1964 obiter dicta in Hedley Byrne v Heller [72] where the House of Lords found that a negligently-made statement (if relied upon) could be actionable provided a "special relationship" existed between the parties.