{"count":13213,"next":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/search/?cursor=cz04LjIwNTMzODUmcz0xMjk2NTM2JnQ9byZkPTIwMjYtMDgtMTgmcD0y&q=UNFORESEEABLE+PLAINTIFFS&type=o","previous":null,"results":[{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10324669/mt-pleasant-blacktopping-co-inc-v-inverness-group-inc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mt. Pleasant Blacktopping Co., Inc. v. Inverness Group, Inc.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 Ohio 284"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":10324669,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-01-31","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C-240134","docket_id":69596439,"judge":"Crouse","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-31T14:12:30.911519Z","date_created":"2025-01-31T14:11:47.813298Z","score":{"bm25":20.95709}},"neutralCite":"2025 Ohio 284","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2690774,2699065,2748997,3194003,3199514,3218078,3682974,3718046,3739193,3765781,3767349,3779676,3781110,4088613,4104045,4540360,6754021,6756624,6758342,6770248,9351057,10742711],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2025/2025-Ohio-284.pdf","id":10791257,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/01/31/mt._pleasant_blacktopping_co._inc._v._inverness_group_inc..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T19:04:06.949830Z","date_created":"2025-01-31T14:11:47.835814Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"05f4a09bed2a3b79e497a7c372a3adce8b14b1b0","snippet":"[Cite as Mt. Pleasant Blacktopping Co., Inc. v. Inverness Group, Inc., 2025-Ohio-284.]\n\n\n\n                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n                    HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\nMT. PLEASANT BLACKTOPPING CO.,                    :         APPEAL NO.          C-240134\nINC.,                                                       TRIAL NO.           A-2102231\n                                                  :\n         Plaintiff-Appellee,\n             ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10791257],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL – MOTION TO DISMISS – CIV.R. 12(B)(7) – JOINDER – CIV.R. 19 – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT – R.C. 2721.12 – NECESSARY PARTIES – CONTRACTS – BREACH OF CONTRACT – SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE – EXCUSE – SECURITY SEWAGE – IMPOSSIBILITY – REGULATORY IMPOSSIBILITY – GOOD FAITH – REMEDIES – DAMAGES: A prior determination by a federal court that a county regulation was not so \"arbitrary and capricious\" as to defy the Due Process Clause of the Federal Constitution did not collaterally estop plaintiff from litigating the entirely distinct issue of whether the county's application of the same regulation was \"arbitrary\" and therefore unforeseeable, so as to excuse plaintiff's contractual performance, regardless of similarities in terminology."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9456183/niehaus-v-durrani/","attorney":"","caseName":"Niehaus v. Durrani","caseNameFull":"","citation":["233 N.E.3d 168","2023 Ohio 4818"],"citeCount":4,"cluster_id":9456183,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-12-29","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C-220019 and C-220035","docket_id":68123922,"judge":"Crouse","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:21:29.182761Z","date_created":"2023-12-29T14:06:59.459211Z","score":{"bm25":20.194216}},"neutralCite":"2023 Ohio 4818","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2692894,2825385,4377355,4646128,4664530,5133941,5289336,5984763,6104525,9894282],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2023/2023-Ohio-4818.pdf","id":9914008,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2023/12/29/niehaus_v._durrani.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T18:21:29.131686Z","date_created":"2023-12-29T14:06:59.486674Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"79f7c20c90b311ce28194ac454edf1c7d53a4e9b","snippet":"[Cite as Niehaus v. Durrani, 2023-Ohio-4818.]\n\n\n\n\n                          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n                           HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\n\n\n VANESSA NIEHAUS, Executrix of the              :   APPEAL NOS. C-220019\n Estate of Veronica Yeakle, deceased,                           C-220035\n                                                :   TRIAL NO. A-1600235\n      Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-\n      Appellant,                          ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9914008],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – INFORMED CONSENT – JURY INSTRUCTION – SUPERSEDING CAUSATION – EXPERT TESTIMONY: The trial court did not err when it denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for a directed verdict as to medical negligence when defendant doctor did not perform the challenged surgical procedure but did have a physician-patient relationship with plaintiff. The trial court erred when it denied defendants' motion for a directed verdict as to lack of informed consent when defendant doctor failed to obtain informed consent but the doctor who actually performed the challenged surgical procedure made a subsequent attempt to obtain informed consent. The trial court did not err when it refused to give defendants' requested jury instruction on superseding causation where that instruction was not a complete and accurate statement of the law because it omitted the requirement that the superseding cause be both unforeseeable and independent of the alleged negligence. The trial court erred in admitting an unfairly prejudicial video collage of deposition testimony given by defendant doctor, and that error entitles defendants to a new trial. The trial court erred in admitting expert testimony of a radiologist pertaining to handwriting analysis when the witness had not laid any foundation to establish expertise in handwriting analysis."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4480897/roberts-v-boehl/","attorney":"","caseName":"Roberts v. Boehl","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2018 Ohio 1118"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":4480897,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2018-03-26","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CA2017-08-039","docket_id":6345323,"judge":"Ringland","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T00:57:09.804442Z","date_created":"2018-03-26T14:45:58.999707Z","score":{"bm25":18.655867}},"neutralCite":"2018 Ohio 1118","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8129,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2018/2018-Ohio-1118.pdf","id":4258150,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2018/03/26/roberts_v._boehl.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T15:47:15.752270Z","date_created":"2018-03-26T14:45:59.011107Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"bb55768425c368ad29c44aa5a53c2b21a982b05c","snippet":"[Cite as Roberts v. Boehl, 2018-Ohio-1118.]\n\n\n\n                                     IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                           TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n\n                                          CLERMONT COUNTY\n\n\n\n\nSHIRLEY L. ROBERTS,                              :\n\n        Plaintiff-Appellant,                     :     CASE NO. CA2017-08-039\n\n                                                 :             OPINION\n    - vs -                                                      ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4258150],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Plaintiff in personal injury action appeals decision granting summary judgment in favor of defendant who claimed to have fallen unconscious while operating motor vehicle before it impacted plaintiff's vehicle. Court found defendant proved that the accident was the result of defendant's unforeseeable and sudden medical emergency while operating his vehicle. There were genuine issues of fact for trial as to whether the defendant's medical emergency was foreseeable where the defendant testified that several years prior he had experienced the same sensation of lightheadedness before falling unconscious while driving and causing an accident."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4804231/melanie-shea-thompson-v-southland-constructors/","attorney":"","caseName":"Melanie Shea Thompson v. Southland Constructors","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":4804231,"court":"Court of Appeals of Tennessee","court_citation_string":"Tenn. Ct. App.","court_id":"tennctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2020-11-06","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"M2019-02060-COA-R3-CV","docket_id":18614275,"judge":"Judge Kristi M. Davis","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-22T02:28:21.080028Z","date_created":"2020-11-06T22:10:39.574381Z","score":{"bm25":17.97092}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1044019,1058259,1074529,1532073,1657290,1788892,2336962],"download_url":"http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/thompson.melanie.opn_.pdf","id":4584578,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2020/11/06/melanie_shea_thompson_v._southland_constructors.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-25T19:31:26.964415Z","date_created":"2020-11-06T22:10:39.582686Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"131522ab4c8a739f21e7f9e15648b2cef22646e9","snippet":"               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE\n                           AT NASHVILLE\n                              September 2, 2020 Session\n\nMELANIE SHEA THOMPSON ET AL. v. SOUTHLAND CONSTRUCTORS\n                        ET AL.\n\n                 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sumner County\n                No. 83CC1-2018-CV-1032 Joe H. Thompson, Judge\n\n\n                            No. M2019-02060-COA-R3-CV\n\n\nThis action involves a tragic accident resulting in the death of Tommy Smith (“","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4584578],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"This action involves a tragic accident resulting in the death of Tommy Smith (\"Decedent\"), who was working as a plumber connecting a sewer line when the trench he was in collapsed and crushed him. Decedent's children (\"Plaintiffs\") sued, among others, Focus Design Builders, LLC, general contractors for the building project, alleging negligence. The trial court granted Focus Design's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6). The trial court held that Focus Design did not owe a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances because Decedent's death was unforeseeable. We hold the complaint states a cause of action for negligence and consequently reverse the judgment of the trial court."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10813649/colwell-v-bob-shawn-ents-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Colwell v. Bob & Shawn Ents., L.L.C.","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2026 Ohio 976"],"citeCount":2,"cluster_id":10813649,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":"SA","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2026-03-23","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"CA2024-11-131","docket_id":72530382,"judge":"Byrne","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-03-23T17:21:41.939030Z","date_created":"2026-03-23T17:21:41.710218Z","score":{"bm25":13.60805}},"neutralCite":"2026 Ohio 976","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1417445,2707969,2768939,3183112,3201526,3683478,3688571,3690771,3766812,3777709,3784263,4366773,4436642,4438003,4442808,4501775,4537990,4674531,4693284,4699115,5327867,6114060,6758639,6758921,6761953,6762006,9324561,9363784,9706146,9805796,9929847,9949328,10792642,11147393,11152820,11153294],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/12/2026/2026-Ohio-976.pdf","id":11280403,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2026/03/23/colwell_v._bob__shawn_ents._l.l.c..pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-03-23T17:22:43.114334Z","date_created":"2026-03-23T17:21:41.735695Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"8479aa1a23be6c1bb6a724a029ec16b2f2fc4c6d","snippet":"[Cite as Colwell v. Bob & Shawn Ents., L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-976.]\n\n\n\n                                   IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n\n                          TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n\n                                          BUTLER COUNTY\n\n\n\n\n TIFFANY COLWELL,                                     :\n\n        Appellant,                                    :          CASE NO. CA2024-11-131\n\n                                                      :              OPINION AND\n     - vs -              ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11280403],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Plaintiff, business invitee, appeals decision granting summary judgment in favor of public bar on negligence claim. Plaintiff injured by umbrella after burst of wind on bar patio. Trial court found accident result of an unforeseeable \"act of God.\" Genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the bar breached a duty of care to the plaintiff by failing to secure umbrella. Genuine issues of fact remained as to proximate cause, and whether wind conditions were sole cause of injury (\"act of God\" defense), or whether the wind, in conjunction with a breach of duty, contributed to Plaintiff's injury. WITH DISSENTING OPINION."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/602403/ronnie-a-traylor-and-ann-m-traylor-plaintiffs-appellants-v-husqvarna/","attorney":"Roger L. Pardieck, Barbara Stevens (argued), Pardieck, Gill & Vargo, Seymour, IN, for plaintiffs-appellants., Ann E. Fulks, Stites & Harbison, Jeffer-sonville, IN, John L. Tate (argued), Stites & Harbison, Louisville, KY, Cecile A. Blau, Jeffersonville, IN, for defendants-appel-lees.","caseName":"Ronnie A. TRAYLOR and Ann M. Traylor, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HUSQVARNA MOTOR, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees","caseNameFull":"37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 517, prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 13,431 Ronnie A. Traylor and Ann M. Traylor v. Husqvarna Motor","citation":["988 F.2d 729","1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4713","1993 WL 69663"],"citeCount":14,"cluster_id":602403,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1993-03-15","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"91-3453","docket_id":161296,"judge":"Posner, Flaum, Williams","lexisCite":"1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4713","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-01-14T06:13:09.672880Z","date_created":"2015-09-24T20:21:56.798428Z","score":{"bm25":11.486175}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[1504974],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/988/988.F2d.729.91-3453.html","id":602403,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T04:48:08.428262Z","date_created":"2011-08-23T10:23:43Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"158b0892165a63d6c8bf4058e229ef0eaf9835a2","snippet":"\n\n\n  POSNER, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  Ronnie Traylor and his wife appeal from the dismissal of their products liability suit, a diversity suit governed by Indiana law. The case was tried before a magistrate judge by consent of the parties and the jury brought in a verdict for the defen\n   \n   *731\n   \n  dants, whom we refer to","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[602403],"source":"RU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/605564/warnerelektraatlantic-corporation-plaintiffs-appellantscross-appellees/","attorney":"Edward M. Kay, James T. Ferrini, Susan Condon, Imelda Terrazino, Thomas J. Skeffington, Kevin P. Caraher, Clausen, Miller, Gorman, Caffrey & Witous, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs-appellants., Byron D. Knight, Sarah Hansen Sotos, Charles C. Hoppe, Jr., Knight, Hoppe, Fanning & Knight, Des Plaines, IL, for defendant-appellee.","caseName":"Warner/elektra/atlantic Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. County of Dupage, Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellant","caseNameFull":"WARNER/ELEKTRA/ATLANTIC CORPORATION, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF DuPAGE, Defendants Appellee/Cross-Appellant","citation":["991 F.2d 1280"],"citeCount":38,"cluster_id":605564,"court":"Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","court_citation_string":"7th Cir.","court_id":"ca7","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1993-06-09","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"91-3847, 91-3886","docket_id":512983,"judge":"Bauer, Posner, Will","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-20T22:53:05.498769Z","date_created":"2015-10-22T19:00:35.897459Z","score":{"bm25":11.338905}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[90086,97240,103209,104451,104686,105192,109485,110225,111227,111751,504444,516529,516972,518447,525029,599348,604170,2000102,2022590,2025929,2070127,2123481,2159263,2230336,3414350],"download_url":"http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/991/991.F2d.1280.91-3886.91-3847.html","id":605564,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":null,"meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T04:59:28.324539Z","date_created":"2011-08-23T10:24:36Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"66772716624e30b30ae3b65a7fff5ed5eecf93c4","snippet":"\n\n\n  POSNER, Circuit Judge.\n \n\n  Damage from flooding gave rise to this diversity suit, which presents interesting questions of eminent domain. The principal plaintiff (and the only one that need be mentioned) is Warner Communications, Inc. The defendant is DuPage County, Illinois. The damage for which Warner seeks compensation (stipulated at $4.2 million) was to cassettes, compact disc","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[605564],"source":"RU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/5293306/honek-v-chidsey/","attorney":"","caseName":"Honek v. Chidsey","caseNameFull":"","citation":["182 N.E.3d 6","2021 Ohio 3816"],"citeCount":3,"cluster_id":5293306,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-10-28","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"109478, 109485, 109486","docket_id":60681479,"judge":"Keough","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:51:22.398308Z","date_created":"2021-10-28T18:13:22.969052Z","score":{"bm25":9.183863}},"neutralCite":"2021 Ohio 3816","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8108,"cites":[2690566,2692643,2694757,2697831,3724180,3727136,3740711,3756770,3762307,3776810,3785657,4258150],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2021/2021-Ohio-3816.pdf","id":5121868,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/10/28/honek_v._chidsey.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:51:22.473239Z","date_created":"2021-10-28T18:13:23.004076Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"612e44e688b11d6ebe9c147a6e4b9fbb6dd35be9","snippet":"[Cite as Honek v. Chidsey, 2021-Ohio-3816.]\n                              COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                             EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n                                COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA\n\nNORMAN G. HONEK, ET AL.,                            :\n\n                Plaintiffs-Appellees,              :    Nos. 109478, 109485, and 109486\n\n                v.                                 :\n\nDONNA E. CHIDSEY, ET AL.,                           :\n\n                Defendants-Appellants.  ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[5121868],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Summary judgment political subdivision immunity R.C. Chapter 2744 proprietary function outdoor concert city property negligence licensee duty reckless wanton willful foreseeable injury. - Trial court erred in denying the city's motion for summary judgment based on R.C. Chapter 2744 political subdivision immunity. A city hosting an outdoor concert on city property is engaging in a proprietary function. The attendees of the concert were deemed licensees thus owed a duty from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct that is likely to cause injury. It was unforeseeable that an errant driver would drive through the wooden barriers causing serious and fatal injuries to the concert attendees. No genuine issue of material facts exists demonstrating that the city breached its duty of care."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/4904992/state-v-long/","attorney":"","caseName":"State v. Long","caseNameFull":"","citation":["175 N.E.3d 1021","2021 Ohio 2656"],"citeCount":7,"cluster_id":4904992,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2021-08-03","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"20AP-90","docket_id":60106491,"judge":"Dorrian","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:59:17.138541Z","date_created":"2021-08-03T19:22:46.019653Z","score":{"bm25":9.135187}},"neutralCite":"2021 Ohio 2656","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":8081,"cites":[2690568,2706850,2757767,3213059,3219395,3763673,4409958,4465969,4662264],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/10/2021/2021-Ohio-2656.pdf","id":4708771,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2021/08/03/state_v._long.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-26T17:59:17.124178Z","date_created":"2021-08-03T19:22:46.046665Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"b100996517c38e86609c364641d8db0eec2025c9","snippet":"[Cite as State v. Long, 2021-Ohio-2656.]\n\n\n                              IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO\n\n                                   TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT\n\nState of Ohio,                                   :\n\n                 Plaintiff-Appellee,             :\n                                                                   No. 20AP-90\nv.                                               :             (C.P.C. No. 15CR-3564)\n\nMichael A. Long,                                 :           (RE","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[4708771],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"Appellant's argument that the admission of victim impact testimony during a bench trial was irrelevant and/or not harmless and warrants reversal is without merit. Appellant failed to prove that a unforeseeable, intervening event absolved his criminal liability for felony murder and therefore sufficient evidence exists to support appellant's conviction. Appellant's convictions of felony murder and felonious assault were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err when it did not merge appellant's aggravated burglary, kidnapping and aggravated robbery convictions. Judgment affirmed."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1302129/word-v-jones-ex-rel-moore/","attorney":"\n\nFerguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, P.A., by Adam Stein, for plaintiff-appellant and -appellee.\n, \nCranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, L.L.P., by Robert W. Sumner and Edward C. LeCarpentier III; and Law Offices of H. Spencer Barrow, by H. Spencer Barrow, for defendant-appellant and -appellee.\n","caseName":"Word v. Jones Ex Rel. Moore","caseNameFull":"Willie Elaine Spivery Word, Administrator Cta of the Estate of Bertha C. Spivery v. Dorothy Galloway Jones, by and Through Her Guardian, Harriet B. Moore.","citation":["516 S.E.2d 144","350 N.C. 557","1999 N.C. LEXIS 420"],"citeCount":11,"cluster_id":1302129,"court":"Supreme Court of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C.","court_id":"nc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"1999-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"336PA98","docket_id":681612,"judge":"Parker","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T03:00:05.706270Z","date_created":"2015-02-03T13:06:46.786925Z","score":{"bm25":9.085883}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":5303,"cites":[1202489,1250181,1329976,1337770,1341115,1341936,1372458,1383485,3645491],"download_url":null,"id":1302129,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"north_carolina/court_opinions/documents/aac8c8c1279433ec.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T06:53:43.215393Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:24:20.532763Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"06d8dd06c11a240ac450e844a21c9b9092b03309","snippet":"\nThis negligence action arose out of an automobile accident that occurred on 14 October 1993. Plaintiff's testate, Bertha C. Spivery, was a passenger in the front seat of an automobile being driven by her daughter, Denise Holder, in a westerly direction on New Bern Avenue. Defendant Dorothy Galloway Jones was driving south on Trawick Road to the intersection of New Bern Avenue. At that point New Bern Avenue is a divided highway with two lanes for eastbound travel and two lanes for west","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 130 N.C. App. 100 , 502 S.E.2d 376 (1998), reversing a judgment entered by Barnette, J., on 19 May 1997 in Superior Court, Wake County, and remanding for new trial. Heard in the Supreme Court 9 February 1999. Page 559","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1302129],"source":"ZLU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"<bold>1. Negligence — sudden incapacitation — instructions</bold>\n<block_quote>     The North Carolina Supreme Court, in a case of first impression before it, adopted the following as the elements of the defense of sudden incapacitation: The defendant was stricken by sudden incapacitation; this incapacitation was unforeseeable to the defendant; the defendant was unable to control the vehicle as a result of this incapacitation; and this sudden incapacitation caused the accident. The defendant has the burden of proving each of these elements by a preponderance of the evidence.</block_quote><page_number>Page 558</page_number>\n<bold>2. Negligence — sudden incapacitation — unconsciousness</bold>\n<block_quote>     The Court of Appeals erred in an action arising from an automobile accident by holding that jury instructions on sudden incapacitation should have included an instruction on unconsciousness. While unconsciousness may be more easily understood and applied to measure sudden medical incapacitation, the crux of the defense is that a defendant by reason of sudden incapacitation becomes unable to control the vehicle. The resolution of disputed facts has historically been left to the jury upon proper instructions.</block_quote>\n<bold>3. Negligence — sudden incapacitation — disjunctive instruction —</bold> <bold>new trial</bold>\n<block_quote>     A plaintiff in an action arising from an automobile accident was entitled to a new trial where the jury charge given by the court on sudden incapacitation allowed the jury to find for defendant if defendant was either unable to control her vehicle or not capable of sense perception or judgment necessary for proper operation of her vehicle. Because the judge used the disjunctive, it cannot be said that the jury found that defendant was unable to control her vehicle because of sudden incapacitation.</block_quote>\n<bold>4. Negligence — sudden incapacitation — Alzheimer's</bold>\n<block_quote>     The trial court did not err in an action arising from an automobile accident where plaintiff contended that the court improperly extended the sudden incapacitation defense by submitting sudden incapacitation based upon Alzheimer's. During the trial, defendant presented three medical explanations supporting the defense of sudden incapacitation which went directly to the elements: Alzheimer's disease, TIA, and arrhythmia. The testimony of defendant's two medical experts was neither objected to nor controverted.</block_quote>\n"},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9475790/platinum-real-estate-holdings-inc-v-slabakis/","attorney":"","caseName":"Platinum Real Estate Holdings, Inc. v. Slabakis","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2024 Ohio 537"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9475790,"court":"Ohio Court of Appeals","court_citation_string":"Ohio Ct. App.","court_id":"ohioctapp","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-02-14","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"C-230237","docket_id":68257408,"judge":"Winkler","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:25:26.964856Z","date_created":"2024-02-16T15:17:07.788219Z","score":{"bm25":8.549312}},"neutralCite":"2024 Ohio 537","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3739679,6338304,9386337],"download_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2024/2024-Ohio-537.pdf","id":9941321,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/02/14/platinum_real_estate_holdings_inc._v._slabakis.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T23:19:47.849496Z","date_created":"2024-02-16T15:17:07.808554Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"826889251b608dc2335ba8239b41f6a86867d72f","snippet":"[Cite as Platinum Real Estate Holdings, Inc. v. Slabakis, 2024-Ohio-537.]\n\n\n\n                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS\n                   FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO\n                             HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO\n\n\n\n PLATINUM REAL ESTATE                               :          APPEAL NO. C-230237\n HOLDINGS, INC.,                                               TRIAL NO. A-1703642\n                                                    :\n          Plaintiff-Appellee,\n               ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9941321],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"CIV.R. 60(B) – SATISFACTION OF JUDGMENT: The trial court erred in granting plaintiff's motion to vacate an entry of satisfaction of judgment in a cognovit action under Civ.R. 60(B)(4) where plaintiff argued that defendant had repudiated a mutual release by filing an action in New York state court: plaintiff failed to show that the continued enforcement of the satisfaction of judgment would be inequitable, because the New York court had yet to determine whether the mutual release applied to the New York litigation, and plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it acted reasonably in waiting nearly four years after defendant filed the New York case to file its motion to vacate."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10422466/carroll-v-forewinds-garrisons-lake-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Carroll v. Forewinds Garrisons Lake, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10422466,"court":"Superior Court of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Super. Ct.","court_id":"delsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"N22C-08-459 CEB","docket_id":68827203,"judge":"Butler R.J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-04-30T19:06:03.169597Z","date_created":"2025-04-30T19:06:03.040058Z","score":{"bm25":8.508116}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=378750","id":10889054,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/30/carroll_v._forewinds_garrisons_lake_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T03:08:47.549309Z","date_created":"2025-04-30T19:06:03.047166Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d1d19058ad55b7454da36c623f83606ffba21e3a","snippet":"         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\n MEGAN CARROLL,                            )\n                                           )\n          Plaintiff,                       )\n                                           )\n          v.                               )        C.A. No.: N22C-08-459 CEB\n                                           )\n FOREWINDS GARRISONS                       )\n LAKE, LLC, and                            )\n FOREWINDS                                 )\n HOSP","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10889054],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9386184/mitchell-v-just-lorraines-place-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mitchell v. Just Lorraine's Place, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 NY Slip Op 01480"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9386184,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 156781/17 Appeal No. 17540 Case No. 2021-04800","docket_id":67059005,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:02:58.598846Z","date_created":"2023-03-23T16:05:36.687569Z","score":{"bm25":8.50191}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3163532,5484381,5532214,5981093,9380904],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_01480.htm","id":9381660,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/03/21/mitchell_v._just_lorraines_place_llc_1.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-27T05:46:36.201303Z","date_created":"2023-03-23T16:05:36.689883Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"e7a3e5659472416a15b0b8aac6e98818888211b3","snippet":"\n\nMitchell v Just Lorraine's Place, LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 01480)\n\n\n\n\n\nMitchell v Just Lorraine's Place, LLC\n\n\n2023 NY Slip Op 01480\n\n\nDecided on March 21, 2023\n\n\nAppellate Division, First Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursua","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9381660],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10698343/chase-bailey-individually-plaintiffcounter-defendant-v-lynn-buskey/","attorney":"","caseName":"Chase Bailey, Individually, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant v. Lynn Buskey, Shawn McCarthy, and Buskey & McCarthy, LLP, Defendants/Counter-Claimants/ Third-Party Plaintiffs v. Michael E. Chubrich, and Michael E. Chubrich, P.A., Third-Party Defendants,","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2015 DNH 103"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10698343,"court":"District Court, D. New Hampshire","court_citation_string":"D.N.H.","court_id":"nhd","court_jurisdiction":"FD","dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2015-05-19","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"12-cv-396-SM","docket_id":71593814,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-09T16:49:16.044016Z","date_created":"2025-10-09T16:48:10.777646Z","score":{"bm25":8.463683}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[744154,2651362,8052857,8052988,9430599,9435077,9484633,9489866],"download_url":"https://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Opinions/15/15NH103.pdf","id":11164931,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2015/05/19/chase_bailey_individually_plaintiffcounter-defendant_v._lynn_buskey.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T04:40:42.321093Z","date_created":"2025-10-09T16:48:10.813766Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"ef200211d509fbefc63a495f79f50ba13bbc5c5d","snippet":"                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n\n                       DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE\n\n\nChase Bailey, Individually,\n     Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant\n\n     v.\n\nLynn Buskey, Shawn McCarthy,               Case No. 12-cv-396-SM\nand Buskey & McCarthy, LLP,                Opinion No. 2015 DNH 103\n     Defendants/Counter-Claimants/\n     Third-Party Plaintiffs\n\n     v.\n\nMichael E. Chubrich, and\nMichael E. Chubrich, P.A.,\n     Third-Party Defendants,\n\n\n                               O R D E","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[11164931],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9832486/sipple-v-richards-and-sams-construction-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Sipple v. Richards and Sam's Construction, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":9832486,"court":"Superior Court of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Super. Ct.","court_id":"delsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-06-25","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"N23C-01-213 FJJ","docket_id":68884188,"judge":"Jones J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-26T00:03:41.058972Z","date_created":"2024-06-25T20:02:13.677601Z","score":{"bm25":8.407488}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2173000],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=365670","id":10299098,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/06/25/sipple_v._richards_and_sams_construction_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T00:38:14.055010Z","date_created":"2024-06-25T20:02:13.686966Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"aaa1807ea35a03d575399465d75818718099c617","snippet":"        IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\nBUD SIPPLE,                               )\n                                          )\n              Plaintiff,                  )\n                                          )     C.A. No.: N23C-01-213 FJJ\n      v.                                  )\n                                          )\nMICHAEL RICHARDS, and                     )\nSAM’S CONSTRUCTION, LLC,                  )\n                                          )\n              Defe","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10299098],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10439029/carrol-v-forewinds-garrisons-lake-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Carrol v. Forewinds Garrisons Lake, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10439029,"court":"Superior Court of Delaware","court_citation_string":"Del. Super. Ct.","court_id":"delsuperct","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-30","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"N22C-08-459 CEB","docket_id":68827203,"judge":"Butler R.J.","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-05-01T15:04:54.975454Z","date_created":"2025-05-01T15:04:54.914287Z","score":{"bm25":8.381775}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=378790","id":10905617,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2025/04/30/carrol_v._forewinds_garrisons_lake_llc.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T03:14:16.800824Z","date_created":"2025-05-01T15:04:54.921326Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"3a01d6fd0a5876c138793ef0038256a9c23d1274","snippet":"         IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE\n\n MEGAN CARROLL,                            )\n                                           )\n          Plaintiff,                       )\n                                           )\n          v.                               )        C.A. No.: N22C-08-459 CEB\n                                           )\n FOREWINDS GARRISONS                       )\n LAKE, LLC, and                            )\n FOREWINDS                                 )\n HOSP","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10905617],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/9385428/mitchell-v-just-lorraines-place-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"Mitchell v. Just Lorraine's Place, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2023 NY Slip Op 01480"],"citeCount":1,"cluster_id":9385428,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2023-03-21","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 156781/17 Appeal No. 17540 Case No. 2021-04800","docket_id":67059005,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-23T01:02:47.101260Z","date_created":"2023-03-21T17:05:15.060428Z","score":{"bm25":8.380454}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[3163532,5484381,5532214,5981093,9381660],"download_url":"http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2023/2023_01480.htm","id":9380904,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2023/03/21/mitchell_v._just_lorraines_place_llc.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-23T20:19:19.342937Z","date_created":"2023-03-21T17:05:15.063382Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"6b57c2d651e927cbd7f633ede980fa0cfb89b6cf","snippet":"\n\nMitchell v Just Lorraine's Place, LLC (2023 NY Slip Op 01480)\n\n\n\n\n\nMitchell v Just Lorraine's Place, LLC\n\n\n2023 NY Slip Op 01480\n\n\nDecided on March 21, 2023\n\n\nAppellate Division, First Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursua","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[9380904],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10012923/state-of-new-jersey-v-kevin-b-boone/","attorney":"","caseName":"State of New Jersey v. Kevin B. Boone","caseNameFull":"","citation":[],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10012923,"court":"New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division","court_citation_string":"N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.","court_id":"njsuperctappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2024-07-24","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"A-3503-21","docket_id":68972106,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-07-24T14:08:31.706634Z","date_created":"2024-07-24T14:08:31.637601Z","score":{"bm25":8.237182}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[107252,118030,118036,166767,1439940,1531535,1969762,1979248,1985105,1990652,1995892,2177589,2283490,2320237,2327882,2353203,2382226,4017386,4121175,4184678,7328917],"download_url":"https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2024/a3503-21.pdf","id":10479524,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"pdf/2024/07/24/state_of_new_jersey_v._kevin_b._boone.pdf","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T01:15:07.103384Z","date_created":"2024-07-24T14:08:31.639987Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"04217d4897a8bb83350c05d098d5ebdab257c5fd","snippet":"               NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE\n              APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION\n\n                                   SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY\n                                   APPELLATE DIVISION\n                                   DOCKET NO. A-3503-21\n\nSTATE OF NEW JERSEY,\n                                       APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION\n                                                July 24, 2024\n     Plaintiff-Respondent,\n                                           APPELLATE D","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10479524],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"The court reverses the denial of a motion to suppress drug evidence discovered by a detective following a dog sniff after an admitted pretext stop. Although not questioning the detective's good faith or impugning the trial court's finding that he was a credible witness, the court finds neither is enough to justify this stop. \"The suspicion necessary to justify a stop must not only be reasonable, but also particularized.\" , 226 N.J. 20, 37 (2016). The detective failed to offer facts sufficient, as a matter of law, to allow the court to determine he possessed a reasonable articulable suspicion that Boone failed to maintain his lane \"as nearly as practicable.\" N.J.S.A. 39:88(b). , 403 N.J. Super. 620, 627-28 (Law Div. 2008). We do not reach defendant's argument that the automobile exception did not apply because the circumstances giving rise to probable cause were not spontaneous and unforeseeable as required under , 223 N.J. 409, 447-48 (2015). , 253 N.J. 156, 171 (2023)."},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/10472018/ld-v-brooklyn-kings-plaza-llc/","attorney":"","caseName":"L.D. v. Brooklyn Kings Plaza, LLC","caseNameFull":"","citation":["2025 NY Slip Op 01906"],"citeCount":0,"cluster_id":10472018,"court":"Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York","court_citation_string":"N.Y. App. Div.","court_id":"nyappdiv","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2025-04-02","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"Index No. 508367/16","docket_id":70074645,"judge":"","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-11-21T18:26:16.133832Z","date_created":"2025-05-03T06:22:56.863593Z","score":{"bm25":8.226951}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":null,"cites":[2128098,4092405,5669579,5934776,9323675,9745688],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_01906.htm","id":10938606,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/04/02/l.d._v._brooklyn_kings_plaza_llc_106.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-12-07T10:39:41.134902Z","date_created":"2025-05-03T06:22:56.872569Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"931e8de8516b40d83ba2c9084b6d526aaf2e65bb","snippet":"\n\nL.D. v Brooklyn Kings Plaza, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 01906)\n\n\n\n\n\nL.D. v Brooklyn Kings Plaza, LLC\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 01906\n\n\nDecided on April 2, 2025\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judi","type":"combined-opinion"},{"author_id":null,"cites":[],"download_url":"http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2025/2025_01906.htm","id":10838145,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"html/2025/04/02/l.d._v._brooklyn_kings_plaza_llc.html","meta":{"timestamp":"2026-05-14T20:05:35.256575Z","date_created":"2025-04-02T20:13:48.161223Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"d381c85a0e413165fb0a3236713a0aa33cd8023c","snippet":"\n\nL.D. v Brooklyn Kings Plaza, LLC (2025 NY Slip Op 01906)\n\n\n\n\n\nL.D. v Brooklyn Kings Plaza, LLC\n\n\n2025 NY Slip Op 01906\n\n\nDecided on April 2, 2025\n\n\nAppellate Division, Second Department\n\n\n\nPublished by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judi","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[10838145,10938606],"source":"C","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":""},{"absolute_url":"/opinion/1296536/martishius-v-carolco-studios-inc/","attorney":"\n\nKirby & Holt, L.L.P., by David F. Kirby and Isaac L. Thorp, for plaintiff-appellees.\n, \nLaw Offices of William F. Maready, by William F. Maready; and Smith Helms Mulliss & Moore, L.L.P., by James G. Exum, Jr., for defendant-appellant.\n","caseName":"Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc.","caseNameFull":"James L. Martishius and Cindy K. Martishius v. Carolco Studios, Inc.","citation":["562 S.E.2d 887","355 N.C. 465","2002 N.C. LEXIS 428"],"citeCount":70,"cluster_id":1296536,"court":"Supreme Court of North Carolina","court_citation_string":"N.C.","court_id":"nc","court_jurisdiction":null,"dateArgued":null,"dateFiled":"2002-05-10","dateReargued":null,"dateReargumentDenied":null,"docketNumber":"175A01","docket_id":1571789,"judge":"Edmunds","lexisCite":"","meta":{"timestamp":"2024-06-21T02:58:08.517084Z","date_created":"2014-10-30T17:46:33.240330Z","score":{"bm25":8.2053385}},"neutralCite":"","non_participating_judge_ids":[],"opinions":[{"author_id":5281,"cites":[1157902,1210729,1231851,1238020,1254023,1274543,1287537,1295773,1296426,1310661,1312099,1316392,1323292,1328933,1346082,1374920,1377623,1386279,1391868,1391963,3662242],"download_url":null,"id":1296536,"joined_by_ids":[],"local_path":"north_carolina/court_opinions/documents/98d5e70a9eac8d6d.xml","meta":{"timestamp":"2025-10-24T06:49:50.086155Z","date_created":"2013-10-30T05:23:15.014605Z"},"ordering_key":null,"per_curiam":false,"sha1":"c3708ae44cfd34cf55711a52a1fae28b5469edd7","snippet":"\nPlaintiffs James L. Martishius (plaintiff) and Cindy K. Martishius initiated this negligence action against Carolco Studios, Inc. (defendant) for injuries sustained on 1 February 1993 when plaintiff came into contact with uninsulated energized power lines while working on defendant's premises. Now before this Court are the issues of whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's denial of defendant's motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the ","type":"combined-opinion"}],"panel_ids":[],"panel_names":[],"posture":"Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30 (2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 142 N.C. App. 216 , 542 S.E.2d 303 (2001), finding no error in a judgment entered 23 July 1999 and subsequent oral orders denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and for new trial entered by Cobb, J., in Superior Court, New Hanover County. Heard in the Supreme Court 12 September 2001.","procedural_history":"","scdb_id":"","sibling_ids":[1296536],"source":"ZLU","status":"Published","suitNature":"","syllabus":"<bold>1. Premises Liability — injury from contact with power line</bold> <bold>— directed verdict — judgment notwithstanding the verdict</bold>\n<block_quote>     The trial court did not err by denying defendant motion-picture studio owner's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of defendant's negligence in a case where plaintiff carpenter came into contact with uninsulated energized power lines while working on defendant's premises to build a film set, because: (1) defendant's retention of substantial authority over the use of its property, taken together<page_number>Page 466</page_number>\nwith its active involvement in the film production company's daily routines, placed upon defendant a concomitant duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the production company's employees including plaintiff were not injured by coming into contact with uninsulated power lines running over the back lot; (2) defendant had a duty to exercise such reasonable care as a landowning proprietor, running a motion-picture studio while maintaining a significant degree of control over the daily operations of its licensees, would exercise under the circumstances; (3) given the evidence to the jury concerning the nature and use of the property, the knowledge of defendant through its facility manager of the set conditions, and the available alternatives, there was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury the question of whether defendant was negligent in causing plaintiff's injuries; (4) defendant has not been held to a strict-liability standard since defendant's liability was based upon the particular facts of the case, including defendant's awareness that the film production employees would be working within the power-line easement and defendant's failure to take reasonable steps to protect plaintiff; and (5) it was not unforeseeable as a matter of law that the type of injury plaintiff sustained would result from defendant's alleged negligence.</block_quote>\n<bold>2. Premises Liability — contributory negligence — injury from</bold> <bold>contact with power line — directed verdict — judgment</bold> <bold>notwithstanding the verdict</bold>\n<block_quote>     The trial court did not err by denying defendant motion-picture studio owner's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of plaintiff carpenter's contributory negligence in a case where plaintiff came into contact with uninsulated energized power lines while working on defendant's premises to build a film set, because: (1) while the general rule is that a person has a legal duty to avoid open and obvious dangers including contact with an electrical wire he knows to be dangerous, that does not mean that a person is guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law if he contacts a known electrical wire regardless of the circumstances and regardless of any precautions he may have taken to avoid the mishap; and (2) the jury properly considered and resolved the conflicting evidence to reach a verdict as to contributory negligence.</block_quote><page_number>Page 467</page_number>\n"}]}