Legal Opinion
Murphy v. City of Reynoldsburg
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 11, 1992No. 91-2023PublishedCited by 910 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.
Civ.R. 56(C) places a clear duty on a trial court to examine all appropriate materials filed by the parties before it when ruling on a motion for summary judgment. We find that the trial court’s failure to comply with the mandates of Civ.R. 56(C) in this case constitutes reversible error. For the reasons which follow, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause to the trial court.
Civ.R. 56(C) provides that, when a party moves for summary judgment: “ * * * Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleading, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- William Butler Smith v. Leman HudsonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1979
- John Russell Webster, Cross-Appellants v. The City of Houston, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1984
- Norris v. Ohio Standard Oil Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- Osborne v. LylesOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Mario Colin McConney v. The City of Houston, and Lee P. Brown, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Chief of Police of the City of HoustonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1989
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by910 opinions
- Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
- State ex rel. Parsons v. FlemingOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied CompaniesOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
- State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1994
905 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.