Home/Ohio Supreme Court/Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins.

Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins.

777 N.E.2d 275, 97 Ohio St. 3d 1420
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 30, 2002
Docket2002-1349
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 777 N.E.2d 275 (Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins., 777 N.E.2d 275, 97 Ohio St. 3d 1420 (Ohio 2002).

Opinion

Hamilton App. No. C-010576. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ entry dated August 2, 2002:

“Must a trial court, before ruling on a motion for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56, either set an oral or non-oral hearing date or establish a cut-off date for parties to submit affidavits or materials opposing the motion?”

Douglas and P.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

The conflict ease is Hall v. Klien (Sept. 3, 1999), Wood App. No. WD-99-001, 1999 WL 682584.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins.
780 N.E.2d 601 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
777 N.E.2d 275, 97 Ohio St. 3d 1420, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hooten-v-safe-auto-ins-ohio-2002.