Legal Opinion

Hooten v. Safe Auto Insurance

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 24, 2003No. 2002-1349PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

{¶ 1} This case addresses whether local rules of court can adequately provide parties with notice of the deadline for filing a response to a motion for summary judgment or of the date the trial court will consider such motion.

I

Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On May 21, 1998, plaintiff-appellee, Henry L. Hooten, filed a complaint against defendant-appellant, Safe Auto Insurance Company (“Safe Auto”), in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court. Hooten alleged that Safe Auto had improperly refused payment under an auto insurance policy between Hooten and Safe Auto for a 1997 accident. Safe Auto…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Murphy v. City of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Jack Griffith v. Louie L. WainwrightCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1985
  3. State ex rel. V Companies v. MarshallOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Village of Pepper PikeOhio Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Van Howell v. Joe D. Tanner, Individually and as Commissioner of Department of Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Byrd v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  2. Smith v. ConleyOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Pruszynski v. ReevesOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Litva v. Village of RichmondOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. Cheap Escape Co. v. Tri-State ConstructionOhio Court of Appeals · 2007

54 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