Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 21 of 21
Full-Text Articles in Law
Appeal No. 0766: Rockwell Resources, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0766: Rockwell Resources, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-89
Appeal No. 0765: Rockwell Resources, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0765: Rockwell Resources, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Orders 2005-111 and 2006-93
Appeal No. 0767: Rockwell Resources, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0767: Rockwell Resources, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2005-111 and 2006-93
Appeal No. 0769: Circle G. Lazy K Ranch V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0769: Circle G. Lazy K Ranch V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-112 (David R. Hill, Inc.)
Appeal No. 0768: James W. & Patricia A. Best V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0768: James W. & Patricia A. Best V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-117 (Great Lakes Energy Partners, LLC)
Appeal No. 0759: D & L Energy, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0759: D & L Energy, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-65
Appeal No. 0757: William & Polly Chandler V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0757: William & Polly Chandler V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-57
Appeal No. 0761: A.W. Tipka Oil & Gas, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0761: A.W. Tipka Oil & Gas, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-80
Appeal No. 0742: B & B Petroleum V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0742: B & B Petroleum V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2004-88
Appeal No. 0756: Dalton Smith V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0756: Dalton Smith V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-36
Appeal No. 0758: John C. Brown V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0758: John C. Brown V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-56
Appeal No. 0760: A.W Tipka Oil & Gas, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0760: A.W Tipka Oil & Gas, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2006-76
Appeal No. 0750: Paul A. Grim V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0750: Paul A. Grim V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2005-20
Appeal No. 0755: Heartland Oil & Gas, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0755: Heartland Oil & Gas, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2005-99
Appeal No. 0754: Valley Petroleum Management V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0754: Valley Petroleum Management V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2005-81
Appeal No. 0753: Kerogen Resources, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Appeal No. 0753: Kerogen Resources, Inc. V. Division Of Mineral Resources Management, Ohio Oil & Gas Commission
Ohio Oil & Gas Commission Decisions
Chief's Order 2005-54
Filling The Void: Providing A Framework For The Legal Regulation Of The Military Companent Of The War On Terror Through Application Of Basic Principles Of The Law Of Armed Conflict, Professor Geoffrey S. Corn
Filling The Void: Providing A Framework For The Legal Regulation Of The Military Companent Of The War On Terror Through Application Of Basic Principles Of The Law Of Armed Conflict, Professor Geoffrey S. Corn
ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law
In 1961, the Supreme Court of the United States held in Mapp v. Ohio' that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution required imposition of the exclusionary rule for evidence improperly seized by State officials.
Employer Vicarious Liability For Voluntary Relationships Between Supervisors And Employees, Carrie E. Fischesser
Employer Vicarious Liability For Voluntary Relationships Between Supervisors And Employees, Carrie E. Fischesser
Seattle University Law Review
It is somewhat radical to suggest that an employer should not be held vicariously liable for an employee's voluntary submission to sexual advances where the alleged harasser is a supervisor, and this approach is a marked departure from existing assumptions regarding sexual harassment. Most decisions and writings on the topic have imposed--under a traditional agency theory-- vicarious liability upon the employer for the sexually harassing conduct of its supervisors.4 Specifically, courts addressing this issue have held that “[t]here is no question that a ‘tangible employment action’ occurs when a supervisor abuses his authority to act on his employer's behalf by …
The Ohio Bureau Of Workers' Compensation: An Analysis Of The Status Quo And A Proposal For Improvement (A Medical Perspective), William H. Seitz Jr.
The Ohio Bureau Of Workers' Compensation: An Analysis Of The Status Quo And A Proposal For Improvement (A Medical Perspective), William H. Seitz Jr.
Journal of Law and Health
A worker's compensation claim is frequently a nightmare for the patient (injured worker), the employer (insurance payor), and the physician (health care provider). Because of the wastefulness inherent in the system, the overall cost of providing workers' compensation care in the State of Ohio has increased dramatically and as a result has seen significant reductions in hospital reimbursement levels and patient benefits, such as prescription drug availability. This article provides two clinical examples to highlight the problems with the worker's compensation system in Ohio. The first case example demonstrates what happens when the patient's initial diagnosis upon entering the system …
Inconsistent Methods For The Adjudication Of Alleged Mentally Retarded Individuals: A Comparison Of Ohio's And Georgia's Post-Atkins Frameworks For Determining Mental Retardation, Scott R. Poe
Cleveland State Law Review
This Note compares Ohio's and Georgia's post-Atkins frameworks for determining mental retardation. Ohio's framework offers a fairer application of Atkins and should serve as a guide for a national legal standard for use by state trial courts to determine mental retardation. Specifically, Ohio's use of preponderance of the evidence is a more appropriate standard of proof for determining mental retardation because it better reaches the overall goal in Atkins. Allowing the judge to make the mental retardation determination protects the alleged mentally retarded defendant from potential jury bias. Because Ohio's and Georgia's definitions of mental retardation are substantially similar and …
Gps Monitoring: A Viable Alternative To The Incarceration Of Nonviolent Criminals In The State Of Ohio, Matthew K. Kucharson
Gps Monitoring: A Viable Alternative To The Incarceration Of Nonviolent Criminals In The State Of Ohio, Matthew K. Kucharson
Cleveland State Law Review
This article will discuss the emergence of GPS technology in the field of criminal law and propose that Ohio embrace GPS monitoring as an alternative to the incarceration of nonviolent offenders. Part II will begin by briefly outlining the history of GPS technology. Part II will then discuss the use of GPS monitoring in the field of law enforcement. Specifically, this Part will illustrate the different components necessary for the implementation of an effective GPS monitoring program and explain the use of inclusion and exclusion zones. Part III will examine the status of Ohio's state prison system and will focus …