Legal Opinion
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. v. Hinterlong
Hamilton County Municipal Court
Decided September 9, 1981No. 80CV29138PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHair, J.
This matter came before the court on a motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff, Cincinnati Bell, Inc., pursuant to Civil Rule 56. Civil Rule 56 allows the court to grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The court must review all evidence in a light most favorable to the non-moving party and if the court determines that reasonable minds could only reach a conclusion adverse to the non-moving party, then the motion will be granted. The court is of the opinion that the plaintiff, Cincinnati Bell,…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Alexander v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
- Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1927
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Pryor v. WebberOhio Supreme Court · 1970
- Geddes & Smith, Inc. v. Saint Paul Mercury Indemnity Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- S & D Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. Enting Water Conditioning Systems, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1991
- Homes by Calkins, Inc. v. FisherOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Washington Water Power Co. v. MillerCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1988
- Cincinnati Bell, Inc. v. CooperHamilton County Municipal Court · 1985
- Bruwelheide v. GarveyCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.