Norris v. Ohio Standard Oil Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants set forth in their initial proposition of law that:
“A motorist whose lane is obstructed by a snowdrift is excused from complying with R. C. §4511.25, the ‘left of center’ statute. * * * ”
The issue before us here is whether defendants-appellees’ motion for summary judgment was properly granted.
“Summary judgment is a procedural device to terminate litigation and to avoid a formal trial where there is nothing to try. It must be awarded with caution, resolving doubts and construing evidence against the moving party, and granted only when it appears from the evidentiary material that…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Morris v. First National Bank & Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1970
- Norman v. Thomas Emery's Sons, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1966
- Vetovitz Bros. v. Kenny Construction Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1978
- Petroff v. Commercial Motor Freight, Inc., Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1960
- Kwait v. John David Management Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by222 opinions
- Murphy v. City of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
- Maust v. Bank One Columbus, N.A.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Osborne v. LylesOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Zurz v. 770 West Broad Aga, L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011
217 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.