Legal Opinion

Huston v. Konieczny

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 1990No. 89-834PublishedCited by 60 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtH. Brown, J.

Pursuant to Civ. R. 56(C), we must determine whether appellants were entitled to summary judgment. We find that they are not, because genuine issues of material fact exist; we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Our analysis of the issues requires three steps. First, we must determine whether the driver of the car was intoxicated. If the evidence supports an affirmative finding, we must resolve two additional issues. We must decide whether liability can lie against the parents who authorized the party at which the driver became intoxicated. Finally, we must determine the…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Mitseff v. WheelerOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Mussivand v. DavidOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Sindell v. Abbott LaboratoriesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
  5. Williams v. First United Church of ChristOhio Supreme Court · 1974

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

3Cited by60 opinions

  1. Simmers v. Bentley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of CommerceOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  4. Simmers v. Bentley Constr. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Gragg v. Wichita State UniversitySupreme Court of Kansas · 1997

55 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