Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Universal Windows & Doors, Inc. v. Eagle Window & Door, Inc.green2 sentences1999See Universal Window Doors, Inc. v. Eagle Window Door, Inc. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 692 , 689 N.E.2d 56 , fn. 3; see, also, Williams v. ITT Financial Servs. 1999See Universal Window Doors, Inc. v. Eagle Window Door, Inc. (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 692 , 689 N.E.2d 56 , fn. 3; see, also, Williams v. ITT Financial Servs. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harasyn v. Normandy Metals, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004Talbert asserts that the trial court’s conclusion is in conflict with the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Harasyn v. Normandy Metals, Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 173 , 551 N.E.2d 962 . {¶ 7} Our review of the trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment is de novo. 2004Talbert asserts that the trial court's conclusion is in conflict with the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Harasyn v. Normandy Metals, Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 173 . {¶ 7} Our review of the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment is de novo. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Balson v. Dodds
green
2 sentences1994We recognize that our decision today might be cited as having some impact on the case of Balson v. Dodds (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 287 , 16 O.O.3d 329 , 405 N.E.2d 293 , wherein this court held, at paragraph one of the syllabus, that “[a] trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewable on appeal by the movant from a subsequent adverse final judgment.” However, as noted by the author of Balsón, Justice William B. 1994We recognize that our decision today might be cited as having some impact on the case of Balson v. Dodds (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 287 , 16 O.O.3d 329 , 405 N.E.2d 293 , wherein this court held, at paragraph one of the syllabus, that “[a] trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment is reviewable on appeal by the movant from a subsequent adverse final judgment.” However, as noted by the author of Balsón, Justice William B. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Continental Insurance v. Whittington
green
2 sentences2018Id. at 159 , 642 N.E.2d 615 . 2018Id. at 159 , 642 N.E.2d 615 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
AB & B, Inc. v. Banfi Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence2008Id. *Page 20 {¶ 73} In its judgment entry granting Continental's motion for remittitur, the trial court stated, "The jury found that plaintiff's failed to mitigate their damages; however, the jury did not make a finding as to whether or not plaintiff's failure to mitigate was taken into consideration in their overall verdict." (Judgment Entry, Dec. 13, 2006). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Poluse v. City of Youngstown
green
2 sentences2008This argument is unpersuasive as well. {¶ 22} "Regarding a summary judgment motion, an order overruling such a motion is subject to revision by the trial court at any time prior to the entry of final judgment * * *." Poluse v. Youngstown (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 720 . {¶ 23} To support his assertion that the second judge was bound by the first judge's denial of summary judgment, Byrd cites Poluse in which the Seventh Appellate District reviewed the law of the case doctrine and recognized that it has been extended to encompass a trial court's adherence to its own prior rulings or to the rulings 2008Id. {¶ 24} Here, the second judge did not violate the law of the case when he granted Continental's motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
green
1 sentence2005Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660 , under both the business auto policy issued by Continental and the umbrella policy issued by Transportation and denied Continental's motion for summary judgment. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Reidling v. Meacham
green
1 sentence2003Relying on this court's decision in Reidling v. Meacham (2002), 148 Ohio App.3d 86 , 2002-Ohio-528 , the trial court found that Virginia law was applicable and, therefore, granted Continental's motion for summary judgment and denied appellant's motion. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Smiddy v. The Wedding Party , Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 36 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.