Ad
related to: educational malpractice cases in ohio law offices searchcourtrec.com has been visited by 100K+ users in the past month
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Held at the Perry County Courthouse in New Lexington, [11] the case produced a 30-day trial, a transcript more than 5,600 pages long and 450 exhibits before the trial judge, Linton D. Lewis, Jr., ruled on July 1, 1994 that Ohioans had a fundamental right to a state-funded education and that the state’s system for providing that education was ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002), was a 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers.The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as long as parents using the program were allowed to choose among a range of secular and religious schools.
Feb. 16—SCIOTO — Over the course of four days, more than 1,800 high school students representing 135 schools from across Ohio competed in the first round of the 39th Annual Ohio Mock Trial ...
Seal of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Linda Hoskinson was hired as an elementary school teacher at Dayton Christian Schools during the 1978-1979 school year. Her employment contract required following a "biblical chain of command" [3] [4] in lieu of using the state legal system and a signed statement of faith. [5]
Gibson's Bakery is a fifth-generation family business established in Oberlin, Ohio, in 1885. [5] [6] Half of the city's 8,000 residents are students or employees—3,000 and 1,000 respectively—of Oberlin College. [7]
The trial court stayed the case for about 18 months because of Coshocton Hospital’s involvement in bankruptcy proceedings. In 2019, the trial court allowed the medical providers to argue their ...
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that states can require an advertiser to disclose certain information without violating the advertiser's First Amendment free speech protections as long as the disclosure requirements are reasonably related to the State's interest in ...