premises violation in Ohio

2016Co., 7 Ohio App.3d 122, 124-125 , 454 N.E.2d 1367 (8th Dist.1982) (provision in residential lease imposing $50 charge every time a motorcycle was brought on the premises in violation of lease’s prohibition of motorcycles was not an enforceable liquidated damages provision where landlord failed to present evidence demonstrating that stipulated damages bore a reasonable relationship to actual damages sustained as a result of the breach; therefore, landlord could not properly deduct charges from security deposit and tenant was entitled to two times amount of security deposit wrongfully withheld u

2016Co., 7 Ohio App.3d 122, 124-125 , 454 N.E.2d 1367 (8th Dist.1982) (provision in residential lease imposing $50 charge every time a motorcycle was brought on the premises in violation of lease’s prohibition of motorcycles was not an enforceable liquidated damages provision where landlord failed to present evidence demonstrating that stipulated damages bore a reasonable relationship to actual damages sustained as a result of the breach; therefore, landlord could not properly deduct charges from security deposit and tenant was entitled to two times amount of security deposit wrongfully withheld u

2002The evidence and testimony shows that Wells had knowledge of the altercation and knowingly allowed the patrons to continue to fight before taking any action to control it, or contact the police. {¶ 36} Additionally, appellants' liquor license was also suspended for 30 days because the Commission determined that appellants maintained tip tickets on the premises in violation Ohio Adm. Code 4301:1-1-53 , which states: {¶ 37} "(B) No person authorized to sell alcoholic beverages shall have, harbor, keep, exhibit, possess or employ or allow to be kept, exhibited or used in, upon or about the premis

1994He argues that “[defendant’s] action in coming onto the premises in violation of the restrictions placed on his privilege to be there were properly chargeable only under [subpart (2) ]. [Defendant] was thus charged under the wrong section of the statute.” Defendant’s argument that his conviction must be reversed is premised upon the proposition that a statute should be interpreted, “ ‘if practicable, as to give some effect to every part of it.’ ” State v. Arnold (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 175, 178 , 573 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 , quoting Turley v. Turley (1860), 11 Ohio St. 173 , 179.

1994He argues that “[defendant’s] action in coming onto the premises in violation of the restrictions placed on his privilege to be there were properly chargeable only under [subpart (2) ]. [Defendant] was thus charged under the wrong section of the statute.” Defendant’s argument that his conviction must be reversed is premised upon the proposition that a statute should be interpreted, “ ‘if practicable, as to give some effect to every part of it.’ ” State v. Arnold (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 175, 178 , 573 N.E.2d 1079, 1082 , quoting Turley v. Turley (1860), 11 Ohio St. 173 , 179.

1962(Alvins v. Commonwealth, 379 Pa., 202 , 108 A. [2d], 788.) Section 5519.02, Revised Code, paragraph 8, pertaining to highway appropriations makes provision for examination of premises by the jury.

1921A., N. S., 782, 784, as follows: “The law is well settled that an owner or occupant of land who by invitation, express or implied, induces or leads others to go upon' premises for any lawful purpose is liable for injuries occasioned by the unsafe condition of the land or its approaches, if such condition was known to him and not to them, and was negligently suffered to exist without timely notice to the public or to those who are likely to act upon such invitation, and if there are hidden dangers upon the premises he must use ordinary care to give persons rightfully upon the premises warning t

1917In the well-considered case of Higgins v. Street, 19 Okla., 45 , 13 L.

1907He was under no obligation to so use them, nor did the lessor do anything to aid in such use.” (To same effect, see McKinney v. Andrews, 41 Tex., 363 ; Steele v. Curle, 34 Ky. [4 Dana], 381, 390.) A lease, at common law, being regarded as a sale of a limited estate in real property, the above cases apply.