Notes of Decisions
State ex rel. DeWine v. Court of Claims of Ohio, 2011-Ohio-5283, 957 N.E.2d 280.
· cites it 10× “Further, R.C. 2743.52(A) directs the attorney general to “make awards of reparations for economic loss arising from criminally injurious conduct, if satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements for an award of reparations have been met.”
State v. Bartholomew, 894 N.E.2d 307 (Ohio 2008).
· cites it 2× “42; and instituting and pursuing legal proceedings against an offender for repayment of an award. R.C. 2743.72(M).”
United States v. Ohio, 756 F. Supp. 340 (S.D. Ohio 1990).
· cites it 6× “Ohio Rev.Code § 2743.52. The United States argues that under the Ohio Court of Claims interpretation of the Ohio Victims of Crime Act the only real question is whether the claimant suffered economic loss due to his injuries.”
State ex rel. Cordray v. Court of Claims, 941 N.E.2d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Thereafter, the attorney general filed the instant complaint arguing that the court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to hear or review an award of attorney’s fees under R.C. 2743.52, 2743.53, 2743.55, 2743.61, and 2743.”
State ex rel. Jenkins v. Tyack, 479 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1985).
· cites it 2× “The legal question raised by the Attorney General was whether relator’s dearth of evidence to support her assertions was sufficient to constitute a preponderance of evidence pursuant to the express dictates of R.C. 2743.52. “Preponderance of evidence” in Victims of Crime…”
In re Saylor, 437 N.E.2d 321 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1982).
· cites it 2× “The operative statutory language is found in R.C. 2743.52 which reads: “The court of claims commissioners that are appointed pursuant to section 2743.”
United States v. State of Ohio, 957 F.2d 231 (6th Cir. 1992).
“The district court entered a declaratory judgment that the “economic loss” requirement in Ohio’s Victims of Crime Act, Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2743.52 (Anderson 1981 & *232 Supp.”
In re McKinnon, 476 N.E.2d 1101 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Johnson, during the proceedings preliminary to the case being submitted to the court on appeal, the single commissioner opined that under R.C. 2743.52 he had no authority to find unconstitutional any portion of R.”
In re Rios, 455 N.E.2d 1374 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1983).
“R.C. 2743.52 permits an award of Victims of Crime reparations only if the commissioner(s) are satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements for an award of reparations have been met.”
In re Grow, 454 N.E.2d 618 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1983).
· cites it 2× “This probably, if it was determined appellee was not “a person living in the same household with the offender,” would require application of R.C. 2743.52 which provides: “The court of claims commissioners that are appointed pursuant to Section 2743.”
In re Faris, 684 N.E.2d 112 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1996).
“R.C. 2743.52(A) places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award have been met by a preponderance of the evidence.”
In re Robinson, 684 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1996).
“R.C. 2743.52(A) places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award have been met by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.52(A): 44 cases
State ex rel. DeWine v. Court of Claims of Ohio, 2011-Ohio-5283, 957 N.E.2d 280.
“Further, R.C. 2743.52(A) directs the attorney general to “make awards of reparations for economic loss arising from criminally injurious conduct, if satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements for an award of reparations have been met.”
State v. Bartholomew, 894 N.E.2d 307 (Ohio 2008).
“42; and instituting and pursuing legal proceedings against an offender for repayment of an award. R.C. 2743.72(M).”
In re Faris, 684 N.E.2d 112 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1996).
“R.C. 2743.52(A) places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award have been met by a preponderance of the evidence.”
In re Robinson, 684 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1996).
“R.C. 2743.52(A) places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award have been met by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.52(B): 3 cases
State ex rel. DeWine v. Court of Claims of Ohio, 2011-Ohio-5283, 957 N.E.2d 280.
“Further, R.C. 2743.52(A) directs the attorney general to “make awards of reparations for economic loss arising from criminally injurious conduct, if satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that the requirements for an award of reparations have been met.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.