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.
6 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dresher v. Burtgreen2 sentences2001See Civ.R. 56(C); see, also, Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280 , 662 N.E.2d 264 . 2001See Civ.R. 56(C); see, also, Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280 , 662 N.E.2d 264 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Snyder v. American Family Insurance
green
2 sentences2011Co., 114 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2007-Ohio-4004 , 871 N.E.2d 574 , the trial court granted Erie’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Marusas’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. 2011Co., 114 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2007-Ohio-4004 , 871 N.E.2d 574 , the trial court granted Erie’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Marusas’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp. v. Employers Insurance
green
1 sentence2004Ormet, supra. SHARP's second assignment of error is overruled. {¶ 27} SHARP's third assignment of error reads: {¶ 28} "The Trial Court erred in granting Erie's motion for summary judgment on SHARP's claims for contribution or reimbursement of costs incurred by SHARP in defending PMHA in the LRL Federal Lawsuit after PMHA provided notice of the suit to Erie on the basis that PMHA waived the right to receive a defense." {¶ 29} SHARP argues the trial court erred by not requiring Erie to sustain its burden of proof on the affirmative defense of waiver. {¶ 30} Initially, the judgment entry on which | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35 , 36 . {¶ 8} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in pertinent part: {¶ 9} "Summary Judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case, and written stipulations of fact, if any, 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. . . . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
City of Columbus v. Alden E. Stilson & Associates
green
1 sentence2003Without ruling upon Erie's motion to clarify, on October 24, 2000, the trial court entered judgment against Erie. {¶ 16} From this October 24, 2000, judgment, Erie appealed, asserting as error: (1) the trial court misinterpreted and misapplied Erie I ; and (2) the trial court erred in requiring Erie to indemnify Colony for an amount that exceeded the amount for which Colony was legally responsible in contravention of Stilson, supra. See Erie Ins. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Erie Insurance Exchange v. Colony Development Corp.
green
1 sentence2003Corp. (2000), 136 Ohio App.3d 419 , appeal not allowed, 88 Ohio St.3d 1502 (" Erie III "), this court denied Erie's motion for reconsideration. {¶ 13} While this court considered the cause presented in Erie I, the Association and Colony entered into a settlement agreement pertaining to the Association's suit against Colony. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Scott-Pontzer v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance
red
1 sentence2003Co. (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 660 . {¶ 17} The trial court rejected the Kelleys' contentions and granted Erie's motion. | 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.