Legal Opinion
State ex rel. Corrigan v. Haberek
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided February 10, 1988No. 87-446PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Per curiam
Summary judgment is appropriate in actions in quo warranto. State, ex rel. Highland Heights, v. Kee (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 234, 71 O.O. 2d 219, 327 N.E. 2d 770; State, ex rel. Corrigan, v. Gillon (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 135, 18 O.O. 3d 365, 413 N.E. 2d 828. The standard which governs a motion for summary judgment is set forth in Civ. R. 56(C). That rule provides:
“* * * Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, * * * written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- State ex rel. Highland Heights v. KeeOhio Supreme Court · 1975
- State ex rel. Corrigan v. GillonOhio Supreme Court · 1980
3Cited by3 opinions
- State ex rel. Watkins v. FiorenzoOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Watkins v. FiorenzoOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Corrigan v. MastenOhio Supreme Court · 1989