Legal Opinion

Savransky v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1983No. 82-579PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Per curiam

Although appellant presents five propositions of law, the dispositive question is whether appellant’s responses to appellees’ motions *119for summary judgment “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial” as required by Civ. R. 56(E). Civ. R. 56(E) states in pertinent part:

“* * * When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lovick v. City of MarionOhio Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Gabris v. BlakeOhio Supreme Court · 1967
  3. Hunter v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  4. Joseph v. City of PortsmouthOhio Supreme Court · 1975

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Riley v. MontgomeryOhio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Morris v. Ohio Casualty InsuranceOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Campco Distributors, Inc. v. FriesOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. King v. K.R. Wilson Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Mathis v. Cleveland Public LibraryOhio Supreme Court · 1984

17 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