Legal Opinion

Ranieri v. Terzano

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 3, 1983No. 44914PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarkus, J.

Defendants-debtors appeal from a summary judgment granted to plaintiffs-creditors in the total sum of $21,100. Defendants assert that their promissory notes for amounts loaned by plaintiffs were due only when defendants were financially able to repay those loans. Accordingly, defendants assert that their economic status was a fact issue which should have precluded summary judgment. We affirm the trial court’s summary judgment order, since defendants’ economic status was not a genuine issue of material fact and plaintiffs were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 1

Viewing the record in the…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. United States v. Diebold, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  2. Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Williams v. First United Church of ChristOhio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Main Bank of Chicago v. BakerIllinois Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Sanford v. LuceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1953

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Park v. AciernoOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
  2. Smith v. VaughnOhio Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Fogg v. FriesnerOhio Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Gowin v. Granite Depot, LLCSupreme Court of Virginia · 2006
  5. Gallwitz v. NovelOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API