Legal Opinion

North v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided March 22, 1967No. 40128PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.

The motion to certify was allowed not because the case involved any new or novel question of negligence law but because of this court’s interest in seeing the summary-judgment procedures used effectively. The summary-judgment statute (Section 2311.041, Revised Code) was enacted with a view to eliminating from the backlog of cases which clog our courts awaiting jury trials those in which no genuine issue of fact exists. The availability of this procedure and the desirability of its aims are so apparent that its use should be encouraged in proper cases.

With this in mind, appellate courts…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Detroit, Toledo & Ironton Rd. Co. v. RohrsOhio Supreme Court · 1926
  2. Patton v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1939
  3. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. v. RusynikOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  4. Toledo Term. Rd. Co. v. HughesOhio Supreme Court · 1926

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Morris v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Keister v. Park Centre LanesOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
  3. King v. K.R. Wilson Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Zuments v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  5. T & S Lumber Co. v. Alta Construction Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984

34 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