Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 309 N.E.2d 924 (Ohio 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 309 N.E.2d 924 (Ohio 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 13× by 13 distinct cases, 2003–2013 · …moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact or material element of the nonmoving party's claim. ⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, last quoted 1985 · 2 courts · …a summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party bein… ✓
548 citation events (362 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1974 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1974 2000 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Smith v. Conti
Ohio Ct. App. · 2026 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 152 (1974). 1.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Pinkston
Ohio Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 152 (1974). {¶11} To succeed on a motion for summary judgment in an action for foreclosure, a bank must show that: “(1) it is the holder of the note and mortgage, or is a party entitled to enforce the instrument; (2) if it is not the original mortgagee, the chain of assignments and transfers; (3) all conditions precedent have been met; (4) the mortgagor . . . is in default; and (5) the amount of principal and interest due.” Whitaker at ¶ 19 , citing Wachovia Bank of Delaware, N.A. v. Jackson, 2011-Ohio-3203 , ¶ 40–45 (5th D…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zimmer Power Co., L.L.C. v. Vogel
unknown court · 2023 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 (1974).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fowler v. Indian River Juvenile Corr. Facility
Ohio Ct. App. · 2021 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150 , 151–52, 309 N.E.2d 924, 925 (1974). {¶23} “[W]e afford no deference to the trial court's decision and independently review the record to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate.” Tornado Techs., Inc. v. Quality Control Inspection, Inc., 2012-Ohio-3451 , 977 N.E.2d 122 , ¶ 13 (8th Dist.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Fed. Natl. Mtge. Assn. v. DeMartin
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Love v. Columbus
Ohio Ct. App. · 2019 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Thompson v. Winn
Ohio Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) CACH, L.L.C. v. Alderman
Ohio Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 (1974).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Butler
Ohio Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ, 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 (1974). {¶ 6} The appeal before ERAC concerned four PTIOs.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Murray v. Murray
Ohio Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 [ 66 O.O.2d 311, 312 , 309 N.E.2d 924, 925 ].” Campbell v. Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 54, 58 , 24 OBR 135, 138, 493 N.E.2d 239, 242 .
cited Cited as authority (rule) Campbell v. Hospitality Motor Inns, Inc.
Ohio · 1986 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 150, 151 [ 66 O.O.2d 311 ].
cited Cited as authority (rule) Engel v. Corrigan
Ohio Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 150, 151-152 [ 66 O.O.2d 311 ], Having done so this court can come but to one conclusion.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ranieri v. Terzano
Ohio Ct. App. · 1983 · confidence medium
A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor.” 2 The standard to be followed on appellate review of the granting or denial of a motion for summary judgment was set forth in Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 150, 151-152 [ 66 O.O.2d 311 ]: “In the …
cited Cited "see" usca/usa, Inc. v. High Tech Packaging, Unpublished Decision (11-27-2006)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. {¶ 32} In this case, although the trial court did not rule on whether the ODT letter was admissible at trial, it clearly considered it as evidence for the purposes of summary judgment.
examined Cited "see" Lingo v. Ohio Central Railroad, Inc., Unpublished Decision (5-9-2006) (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 , 66 O.O.2d 311 , 309 N.E.2d 924 . {¶ 34} As the issues presented in appellant's first and second assignments of error both concern indemnification, we will begin with a review regarding indemnification as a guide to our determination.
examined Cited "see" Herzberg v. Am. Natl. Prop. Cas. Co., Unpublished Decision (12-15-2005) (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 , 66 O.O.2d 311 , 309 N.E.2d 924 .
cited Cited "see" Sain v. Roo, Unpublished Decision (10-23-2001)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 .
examined Cited "see" Volter v. C. Schmidt Co. (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 , 66 O.O.2d 311 , 309 N.E.2d 924 .
cited Cited "see" Sheets v. Rockwell International Corp.
Ohio Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 150 .
discussed Cited "see" Wieber v. Rollins (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 150 , 66 O.O. 2d 311, 309 N.E. 2d 924 ; and Engel v. Corrigan (1983), 12 Ohio App. 3d 34 , 12 OBR 121, 465 N.E. 2d 932 .
discussed Cited "see" Stemen v. Shibley (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 150 [ 66 O.O.2d 311 ].
cited Cited "see" Hounshell v. American States Insurance
Ohio · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 150 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Romine v. Ohio State Highway Patrol (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see also · confidence low
Civ.R. 56(C); see, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 , 66 O.O.2d 311 , 309 N.E.2d 924 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Collins v. Emro Marketing Co., Unpublished Decision (5-11-1999)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
Civ.R. 56(C); see, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Sikora v. Gibbs (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 , 66 O.O.2d 311, 311-312 , 309 N.E.2d 924, 925 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Erie Insurance v. Favor (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Civ.R. 56(C); see, also, Williams v. First United, Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 , 66 O.O.2d 311 , 309 N.E.2d 924 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Bill Swad Chevrolet, Inc. v. Ricart Jeep Eagle, Inc. (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1998 · signal: see also · confidence low
Civ.R. 56(C); see, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 , 66 O.O.2d 311 , 309 N.E.2d 924 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Labate v. National City Corp. (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett (1986), 477 U.S. 317, 323-324 , 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552-2553 , 91 L.Ed.2d 265, 274 ; see, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150, 151 , 66 O.O.2d 311, 311-312 , 309 N.E.2d 924, 925 ; Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66 , 8 O.O.3d 73, 74 , 375 N.E.2d 46, 47 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Jones v. Shelly Co. (3×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St.2d 150 , 66 O.O.2d 311 , 309 N.E.2d 924 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Dohner v. Bailey (2×)
Ohio Ct. App. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Williams v. First United Church of Christ (1974), 37 Ohio St. 2d 150 [ 66 O.O.2d 311 ].
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Williams
v.
First United Church of Christ
No. 73-467.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Mar 20, 1974.
309 N.E.2d 924
Messrs. Cohen, Todd, Kite S Spiegel and Mr. Marshall C. Hunt, Jr., for appellees., Messrs. McIntosh, McIntosh $ Knabe and Mr. Bruce B. McIntosh, for appellant.
Brown, Celebrezze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Stern.
Cited by 300 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Civ. R. 56(C), in pertinent part, provides:

“ * # # Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions * * * affidavits * * * timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered until it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor. * * #”

Civ. R. 56 (0) is based upon Rule 56 (C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, we have the advantage of interpretations by federal courts, as well as our own.

In the following cases, the United States Supreme Court emphasized the way in which a reviewing court should evaluate the record upon an appeal from a summary judgment:

“* * * We look at the record on summary judgment in the light most favorable to * * * the party opposing the motion * * *,’ Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System [*152] (1962), 368 U. S. 464, 473. Further, “* * * -on summary judgment the inferences to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in such materials [depositions, affidavits and exhibits] must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.” United States v. Diebold (1962), 369 U. S. 654, 655.

The record in this case contains the motion for summary judgment, parts of a deposition of Mrs. Williams taken by the attorney for the Church, a memorandum supporting the Church’s motion for summary judgment and the respective pleadings.

It could be gleaned from the record that the Church was operating an annual bazaar and supper which usually nets between $1,800 and $2,000; and that the money collected generally aids the Church in its operation or budget. It was apparent that the plaintiff was a member of the Church who had donated services during the bazaar, and who had purchased and was eating her supper when the accident occurred. Also, there was some evidence that the Church had notice of the unsafe condition of the coat rack.

From that record, the Court of Appeals determined that two genuine issues of fact were sufficiently raised: (1) Whether Mrs. Williams was a nonbeneficiary of the defendant Church; and (2) “whether the Church was operating a business enterprise for profit not reasonably related to the purpose for which it was organized.”

In Bell v. Salvation Army (1961), 172 Ohio St. 326, 328, this court, in a per curiam decision, said:

“* * * There are at least three exceptions to the doctrine of immunity for nonhospital charitable institutions, to wit; (1) where the injured person is not a beneficiary of the institution (Gibbon, Admr., v. Y. W. C. A., 170 Ohio St. 280 * * *) ***; and (3) where the institution operates a business enterprise for profit not directly related to the purposes for which such institution was organized (Blankenship v. Alter, Archbishop, Trustee, 171 Ohio St. 65 * * *.)”

We agree with the Court of Appeals that, based upon the underlying facts and documents before the trial court,[*153] inferences eonld be drawn, which, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, would require that the motion for summary judgment be denied.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed1.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Corrigan, Stern, Celebrezze, W. Brown and P. Brown, JJ., concur.