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

  1. State ex rel. Highland Heights v. KeeOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. State ex rel. Corrigan v. GillonOhio Supreme Court · 1980

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Watkins v. FiorenzoOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Watkins v. FiorenzoOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State ex rel. Corrigan v. MastenOhio Supreme Court · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API