Legal Opinion

Tucker v. Webb Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1983No. 82-547PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Per curiam

In determining the appropriateness of granting a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ. R. 56, we noted in Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 64, at page 66 [8 O.O.3d 73]:

“The appositeness of rendering a summary judgment hinges upon the tripartite demonstration: (1) that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
  3. Benjamin v. Deffet Rentals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1981

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Manofsky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Whiteleather v. YosowitzOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Shaver v. Wolske & BlueOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. R & R Plastics, Inc. v. F.E. Myers Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  5. Simeone v. Girard City Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 2007

27 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