State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.
On appeal, appellant raises three procedural issues:(1) that not all of his claims have been determined, (2) that he was not given notice of a hearing date for resolution of appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and (3) that his request for attorney fees was disregarded.
Claims
Appellant first contends that our prior decision in State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris, supra, did not resolve his claim for release on the merits. We agree. However, the court of appeals’ decision to grant appellee’s motion for summary judgment, which we affirm today, did…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Petrey v. SimonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- State ex rel. Fant v. MengelOhio Supreme Court · 1991
3Cited by5 opinions
- State ex rel. V Companies v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- State ex rel. The V Cos. v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
- Hooten v. Safe Auto InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2003
- Hudak v. Valleyaire Golf Club, Inc., Unpublished Decision (11-22-2000)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2000
- Millonzi v. Perram Electric, Inc., Unpublished Decision (12-31-2002)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002