Legal Opinion

Hollingsworth v. Time Warner Cable

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 18, 2004No. C-030663PublishedCited by 15 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Winkler, Presiding Judge.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Patti Hollingsworth, appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Time Warner Cable, a division of Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. (“Time Warner”). Hollingsworth assigns two errors: (1) that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Time Warner and (2) that the trial court erred in granting Time Warner’s motion for a protective order and denying her corresponding motion to compel discovery. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the…

2Cases cited32 opinions

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Texas Department of Community Affairs v. BurdineSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Blakemore v. BlakemoreOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1996

27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by15 opinions

  1. Hollingsworth v. Time Warner CableOhio Court of Appeals · 2006
  2. King v. the Jewish HomeOhio Court of Appeals · 2008
  3. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Court of Claims · 2020
  4. Terrell v. Uniscribe Professional Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2004
  5. Brown v. Dover Corp., C-060123 (5-4-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API