Legal Opinion

State ex rel. Freeman v. Morris

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1992No. 92-994PublishedCited by 5 opinions

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

  1. Petrey v. SimonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. State ex rel. Fant v. MengelOhio Supreme Court · 1991

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. State ex rel. V Companies v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. State ex rel. The V Cos. v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Hooten v. Safe Auto InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Hudak v. Valleyaire Golf Club, Inc., Unpublished Decision (11-22-2000)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. Millonzi v. Perram Electric, Inc., Unpublished Decision (12-31-2002)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2002

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API