Legal Opinion
Holzemer v. Urbanski
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 28, 1999No. 98-1291PublishedCited by 55 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
The issue presented is whether, in the circumstances of this case, the doctrine of res judicata operates to preclude Holzemer from moving forward to litigate the claims set forth in her complaint. For the reasons that follow, we determine that Holzemer’s claims are not precluded by res judicata and so affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Defendants support the trial court’s grant of summary judgment under Civ.R. 56, arguing that the trial court correctly found that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Defendants in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Grava v. Parkman TownshipOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Durfee v. DukeSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Norwood v. McDonaldOhio Supreme Court · 1943
- National Amusements, Inc. v. City of SpringdaleOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Rogers v. City of WhitehallOhio Supreme Court · 1986
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- State v. DavisOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State Ex Rel. Schachter v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement BoardOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie MetroParksOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Mitchell v. International Flavors & Fragrances, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2008
- Buckner v. Bank of New YorkOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.