Legal Opinion

Brainard v. City of Toledo

Lucas County Court of Common Pleas

Decided October 24, 2001No. CI00-3089PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Judith Ann Lanzinger, Judge.

{¶ 1} This employment action is before the court upon a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants. Upon consideration of the pleadings, arguments of counsel, and all evidence submitted, pursuant to Civ.R. 56, the court grants the motion.

I

{¶ 2} A motion for summary judgment will be granted only when, after the record evidence is read most favorably for the opposing party, there is no genuine issue over any material fact and the party filing the motion is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64,…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1978
  3. Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
  5. Burr v. Board of County CommissionersOhio Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ziegler v. Findlay Industries, Inc.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006
  2. Thompson v. City of OakwoodDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2018
  3. Magnum Towing & Recovery, LLC v. City of ToledoDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2006
  4. Benchmark Construction Co., Inc. v. City of Lima, OhioDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API