Webb motion in Ohio

2014As part of his petition, Webb alleged the state violated his constitutional rights and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), by failing to disclose purported exculpatory and material evidence to his defense counsel. -3- Clermont CA2014-01-013 After holding a hearing on the matter, the District Court denied Webb's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Webb v. Mitchell, S.D.Ohio No. 1:98-CV-766, 2006 WL 3333842 (Nov. 14, 2006).

2014As part of his petition, Webb alleged the state violated his constitutional rights and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), by failing to disclose purported exculpatory and material evidence to his defense counsel. -3- Clermont CA2014-01-013 After holding a hearing on the matter, the District Court denied Webb's petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Webb v. Mitchell, S.D.Ohio No. 1:98-CV-766, 2006 WL 3333842 (Nov. 14, 2006).

2014The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed our decision in State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325 (1994), and later denied Webb's motion for reconsideration in State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 1472 (1994).

2014The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed our decision in State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 325 (1994), and later denied Webb's motion for reconsideration in State v. Webb, 70 Ohio St.3d 1472 (1994).

2014The Ohio Supreme Court later affirmed this court's decision denying Webb's motion to reopen his direct appeal in State v. Webb, 85 Ohio St.3d 365 (1999). {¶ 5} Webb next filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

2014The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari in Webb v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 1023 , 115 S.Ct. 1372 (1995). {¶ 4} Webb then filed a petition for postconviction relief, which this court denied in State v. Webb, 12th Dist.

2014The United States Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari in Webb v. Ohio, 514 U.S. 1023 , 115 S.Ct. 1372 (1995). {¶ 4} Webb then filed a petition for postconviction relief, which this court denied in State v. Webb, 12th Dist.

2012The record also supports Webb’s claim that upon arriving Star Ex expected Higgs to park in what was referred to as the employees’ “staging area.” 2 Although Webb’s appellate brief mentions his motion for a new trial, his argument focuses on the motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. [Cite as Webb v. Higgs, 2012-Ohio-3291 .] {¶ 9} Webb argues that “[d]riving to Hawk’s Nest was * * * an integral part of Higgs’s job in that it was necessary for him to perform his work on the pipe crew.” Webb also asserts that Higgs was promoting and furthering Star Ex’s business

2012The record also supports Webb’s claim that upon arriving Star Ex expected Higgs to park in what was referred to as the employees’ “staging area.” 2 Although Webb’s appellate brief mentions his motion for a new trial, his argument focuses on the motions for a directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. [Cite as Webb v. Higgs, 2012-Ohio-3291 .] {¶ 9} Webb argues that “[d]riving to Hawk’s Nest was * * * an integral part of Higgs’s job in that it was necessary for him to perform his work on the pipe crew.” Webb also asserts that Higgs was promoting and furthering Star Ex’s business

2007The court cites to the allegations contained in Tucker's memorandum in opposition to Webb's motion for summary judgment, only in so far as that the motion was filed "* * * prior to the institution of any substantial discovery against it thus far which would determine certain issues present in the case surrounding the sale * * *." Tucker at 122 . 2 See, e.g., Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep't. of Veterans Affairs (C.A.2, 2000), 201 F.3d 94 ; Farmer v. Brennan (C.A.7, 1996), 81 F.3d 1444 , 1449-50 ; Dean v. Barber (C.A.11, 1992), 951 F.2d 210 , 214 , n. 3; First Chicago Int'l. v. United Exchange Co. (C.A.

2007The court cites to the allegations contained in Tucker's memorandum in opposition to Webb's motion for summary judgment, only in so far as that the motion was filed "* * * prior to the institution of any substantial discovery against it thus far which would determine certain issues present in the case surrounding the sale * * *." Tucker at 122 . 2 See, e.g., Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep't. of Veterans Affairs (C.A.2, 2000), 201 F.3d 94 ; Farmer v. Brennan (C.A.7, 1996), 81 F.3d 1444 , 1449-50 ; Dean v. Barber (C.A.11, 1992), 951 F.2d 210 , 214 , n. 3; First Chicago Int'l. v. United Exchange Co. (C.A.

2007The court cites to the allegations contained in Tucker's memorandum in opposition to Webb's motion for summary judgment, only in so far as that the motion was filed "* * * prior to the institution of any substantial discovery against it thus far which would determine certain issues present in the case surrounding the sale * * *." Tucker at 122 . 2 See, e.g., Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep't. of Veterans Affairs (C.A.2, 2000), 201 F.3d 94 ; Farmer v. Brennan (C.A.7, 1996), 81 F.3d 1444 , 1449-50 ; Dean v. Barber (C.A.11, 1992), 951 F.2d 210 , 214 , n. 3; First Chicago Int'l. v. United Exchange Co. (C.A.

2007The court cites to the allegations contained in Tucker's memorandum in opposition to Webb's motion for summary judgment, only in so far as that the motion was filed "* * * prior to the institution of any substantial discovery against it thus far which would determine certain issues present in the case surrounding the sale * * *." Tucker at 122 . 2 See, e.g., Hellstrom v. U.S. Dep't. of Veterans Affairs (C.A.2, 2000), 201 F.3d 94 ; Farmer v. Brennan (C.A.7, 1996), 81 F.3d 1444 , 1449-50 ; Dean v. Barber (C.A.11, 1992), 951 F.2d 210 , 214 , n. 3; First Chicago Int'l. v. United Exchange Co. (C.A.

2006State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521 .

2005Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110 , 2002-Ohio-5334 , 776 N.E.2d 1050, ¶ 20 . {¶ 21} Therefore, we deny Webb’s motion to dismiss.

2005Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110 , 2002-Ohio-5334 , 776 N.E.2d 1050, ¶ 20 . {¶ 21} Therefore, we deny Webb’s motion to dismiss.

2005Hackworth v. Hughes, 97 Ohio St.3d 110 , 2002-Ohio-5334 , 776 N.E.2d 1050, ¶ 20 . {¶ 21} Therefore, we deny Webb’s motion to dismiss.

2002Schade v. Carnegie Body Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 207 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 120} In response to National Union's argument, Westfield contends it placed National Union on notice of the Webb claim as early as March 2000.

2002Schade v. Carnegie Body Co. (1982), 70 Ohio St.2d 207 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 120} In response to National Union's argument, Westfield contends it placed National Union on notice of the Webb claim as early as March 2000.

1983R. 56(F) 1 specifically, he did in effect ask the trial court for more discovery in attempting to justify his opposition to Webb’s motion for summary judgment. 2 Hence, this cause presents a different situation than that which was found to exist in Benjamin v. Deffet Rentals (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 86 [ 20 O.O.3d 71 ].

1983R. 56(F) 1 specifically, he did in effect ask the trial court for more discovery in attempting to justify his opposition to Webb’s motion for summary judgment. 2 Hence, this cause presents a different situation than that which was found to exist in Benjamin v. Deffet Rentals (1981), 66 Ohio St. 2d 86 [ 20 O.O.3d 71 ].