Legal Opinion

Adkins v. Village of Ontario

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 21, 1983No. 83-103PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

The sole issue presented for our determination is whether the court of appeals was correct in affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, pursuant to Civ. R. 56, in favor of appellee, village of Ontario.

Pursuant to Civ. R. 56(C), summary judgment may be granted when it appears from the evidence submitted 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, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor. We must, therefore, construe…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dickerhoof v. City of CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Fankhauser v. City of MansfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Strunk v. Dayton Power & Light Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Martin v. Central Ohio Transit AuthorityOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Pyle v. Ledex, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. DeFini v. City of Broadview HeightsOhio Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. Amborski v. City of ToledoOhio Court of Appeals · 1990
  5. Curless v. Lathrop Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1989

7 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