Amendments to 292.14

1. State v. Scarberry

   2005 Ohio 1425 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 1 times

   {¶ 9} In the case herein, appellant concedes that the trial court made the necessary findings required by R.C. 2929.14(B) and (C) to impose a sentence greater than the minimum sentence for burglary and to sentence appellant to the maximum term of ten years in prison for rape. Appellant further concedes that the trial court made the findings required by R.C. 292.14(E)(4) to order that said sentences be served consecutively. Appellant, however, specifically maintains that the trial court's findings that "the shortest term of imprisonment would demean the seriousness of appellant's conduct and would not adequately protect the public" (see R.C. 2929.14(B)(2)); that appellant "committed the worst form of the offense" (R.C. 2929.14(C)); and that appellant is likely to recidivate (R.C. 2929.14(E)(4) and 2929.12(D) and (E)) were contrary to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington (2004), 542 U.S. ___, 124 S.Ct. 2531.
2. Matter of Nitti

   110 N.J. 321 (N.J. 1988)   Cited 10 times

   end of each month, with the following exceptions:Date Account Balance Sums Due Clients Trust 4/81 $ 292.14 $ 8,920.88 12/31/81 $ 1,981.62 $14,747.84 3/31/82 $ 4,966.92 $ 5,503.20 6/30/82 $11,172.02 $17,544

3. STATE v. DYLA

   2008 Ohio 561 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

   {¶ 32} In the case at bar, we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing appellant to a four year prison term. The jury found appellant guilty of third degree felony driving while under the influence. For a third degree felony driving while under the influence offense, R.C. 4511.19(G)(2)(e)(i) requires the court to impose a mandatory prison sentence ranging from one to five years. Moreover, R.C. 292.14(A)(3) authorizes a trial court to sentence a third-degree felony offender to one to five years in prison. In the case sub judice, the trial court's four year prison sentence falls within the statutory range.

   PAGE 11
4. State v. Thomas

   2014 Ohio 1120 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 1 times

   {¶ 39} Thomas contends that the trial court failed to find that the consecutive sentence is not disproportionate to the seriousness of the offender's conduct and not disproportionate to the danger the offender poses to the public, as required by R.C. 292.14(C)(4). When it imposed consecutive sentences upon Thomas, it made the following finding:

   PAGE 21
5. Butler v. Burke

   250 F. Supp. 178 (E.D. Wis. 1965)   Cited 1 times

   2 more...

   Neither the court nor anyone else ever informed the petitioner of the provisions of the Wisconsin Sex Deviate Act, § 959.15, which provides that if, after conviction of a prisoner for a crime, the court finds the defendant was probably directly motivated by a desire for sexual excitement in the commission of the crime, it may commit the defendant to the Department of Public Welfare for a pre-sentence examination. After completion of the examination (but not later than sixty days after the commitment order) the report is forwarded to the court with the recommendation of the Department. If the Department recommends specialized treatment, the court may either place the defendant on probation with the requirement that he receive out-patient or in-patient treatment or commit him to the Department of Public Welfare for further treatment in an institution designated by the Department. The designated institution in this case is the Wisconsin State Prison at Waupun. Although a commitment is indefinite on its face, § 959.15(12) provides that the defendant shall be discharged at the end of the maximum term (in this case ten years) minus good time, unless the committing court, upon…

   PAGE 180
6. State v. United States

   134 Idaho 940 (Idaho 2000)   Cited 3 times

   • Motion for summary judgment
   2 more...

   In order to meet the test of necessity required for a federal reserved water right, the need for water must be so great that, without water, the primary purpose of the reservation will be entirely defeated. New Mexico, 438 U.S. at 700, 98 S.Ct. at 3014. In this case, we do not believe the non-wilderness portion of the reservation created by the Sawtooth National Recreation Area Act meets this test. As previously discussed, the primary purpose of the non-wilderness portion of the Act was to protect that area from the dangers of unregulated development and mining operations in order to preserve the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values and enhance the recreational values associated with the area. These purposes are, and have been, accomplished through the promulgation of land use regulations for the recreation area which control the rate and manner of development of the area, as well as limiting mining operations. See, e.g., 36 C.F.R. § 292.14 — 36 C.F.R. § 292.18 (1999). Contrary to the assertions of the United States, the purpose of the Act was not simply to protect fish habitat, but rather to protect that habitat, as well as the other values…

   PAGE 946
7. Graves v. Kephaco Corp.

   Case No. 2:18-cv-682 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 24, 2020)

   • Motion for summary judgment
   • Motion to dismiss
   7 more...

   118,291.70 111,261.29 89,934.87 Graves Generated Accounts Bathworks 0 0 0 0 Lumberworks 0 0 894.53 292.14 Total Columbus Area Sales 142,226.01 163,240.59 196,860.13 142,149.05 (AMI Sales Rec. 2014-June 2017

8. State v. Cox

   2012 Ohio 2100 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)

   {¶ 100} Initially, we note that pursuant to Foster, judicial fact-finding is not required before imposition of consecutive prison terms. Thus, the trial court was not required to make any findings under R.C. 292.14(E)(4) when it imposed consecutive prison terms in the instant case. Additionally, it is undisputed that the sentences imposed by the trial court were within the applicable statutory ranges for the offenses. Therefore, Cox's sentence was not contrary to law.

   PAGE 29
9. Ruppert v. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan

   Case No. 08-cv-127-bbc (W.D. Wis. Sep. 6, 2012)

   +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦Remaining ¦Remaining ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Underpayment ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PIN ¦underpayment ¦Underpayment ¦ ¦Class A ¦Class B ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦due to PJI ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦without PJI ¦with PJI ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+---------¦ ¦10101¦114.15 ¦222.55 ¦108.40 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+---------¦ ¦1809 ¦15,214.64 ¦28,147.54 ¦12,932.90 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+---------¦ ¦7341 ¦4,466.73 ¦7,126.52 ¦2,659.79 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+---------¦ ¦9851 ¦126.00 ¦588.75 ¦462.75 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+---------¦ ¦7225 ¦3,647.45 ¦6,125.35 ¦2,477.90 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+---------¦ ¦2887 ¦320.95 ¦613.09 ¦292.14 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+---------¦ ¦7109 ¦0.00 ¦756.98 ¦756.98 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+--------------+--------------+--------------+---------+---------¦ ¦1154 ¦33,752.71 ¦57,915.81 ¦24,163.10 ¦A ¦B …

   PAGE 21
10. Ruppert v. Alliant Energy Cash Balance Pension Plan

    Case No. 08-cv-127-bbc (W.D. Wis. Aug. 29, 2012)

    +------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦Remaining ¦Remaining ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Underpayment¦ ¦ ¦ ¦PIN ¦Underpayment¦underpayment¦ ¦Class A¦Class B¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦due to PJI ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦with PJI ¦without PJI ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦10101¦114.15 ¦222.55 ¦108.40 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦1809 ¦15,214.64 ¦28,147.54 ¦12,932.90 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦7341 ¦4,466.73 ¦7,126.52 ¦2,659.79 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦9851 ¦126.00 ¦588.75 ¦462.75 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦7225 ¦3,647.45 ¦6,125.35 ¦2,477.90 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦2887 ¦320.95 ¦613.09 ¦292.14 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦7109 ¦0.00 ¦756.98 ¦756.98 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦1154 ¦33,752.71 ¦57,915.81 ¦24,163.10 ¦A ¦B ¦ +-----+------------+------------+------------+-------+-------¦ ¦11172¦610.04 ¦1,409.48 ¦799.44 ¦A ¦B …

    PAGE 21