Houk v. Ross
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCoRRigan, J.
Appellant’s first two propositions of law deal with the reversal and entry of summary judgment by the Court of Appeals against the appellant-movant.
Appellant argues that reversal by an appellate court of an entry of summary judgment and the subsequent rendering of summary judgment against the movant, in a civil action, constitutes a violation of Section I of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 12 of the Constitution of the state of Ohio, as a denial of “due process,” and the right to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment to the United States…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Fountain v. FilsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- The Procter & Gamble Independent Union of Port Ivory, N.Y. v. The Procter & Gamble Manufacturing CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1962
- Globe Liquor Co. v. San RomanSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- International Longshoremen's Association, Afl-Cio v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., and Sea Land Services, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by73 opinions
- Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass'n, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 2018
- LaCourse v. FleitzOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Slife v. Kundtz Properties, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1974
- Reese v. ProppeOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
- State ex rel. Cuyahoga County Hospital v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' CompensationOhio Supreme Court · 1986
68 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.