Legal Opinion

Anderson v. Ruoff

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 9, 1995No. 94APE06-925PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Dean Strausbaugh, Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, Mary Anderson, appeals from a summary judgment rendered in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas in favor of defendants, Sandra Lukens (“appellee”) and Russell Ruoff. The trial court granted summary judgment upon concluding that neither Lukens nor Ruoff owed a duty to protect against the “open and obvious” hazard.

On appeal, appellant raises the following assignment of error:

“The trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Defendant Sandra Lukens.”

Summary judgment is appropriate only where there are no genuine issues of material fact and…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
  2. Sidle v. HumphreyOhio Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Simmers v. Bentley Construction Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Presley v. City of NorwoodOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Baldauf v. Kent State UniversityOhio Court of Appeals · 1988

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

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Jenkins v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2013
  2. Nageotte v. Cafaro Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. Cordell v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. Corr., 08ap-749 (3-31-2009)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2009
  4. Bundschu v. NaffahOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
  5. Lillie v. MeachemOhio Court of Appeals · 2009

18 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