Spangler v. Kehres

Ohio Supreme Court

Spangler v. Kehres

1996 Ohio 453, 75 Ohio St. 3d 1218

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 12, 1996

Docket1995-1130

StatusPublished

This text of 1996 Ohio 453 (Spangler v. Kehres) 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

Spangler v. Kehres, 1996 Ohio 453, 75 Ohio St. 3d 1218 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 75 Ohio St.3d 1218.]

SPANGLER, APPELLANT, v. KEHRES, APPELLEE. [Cite as Spangler v. Kehres, 1996-Ohio-453.] Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. (No. 95-1130—Submitted at the New Philadelphia Session April 17, 1996— Decided June 12, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 94-CA-69. __________________ Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott Co., L.P.A., and Edward L. Clark, for appellant. Sauter & Hohenberger and Kenneth R. Beddow, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. MOYER, C.J., F. E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, J., dissents. RESNICK, J., dissents separately. __________________ ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment. Summary judgment should not have been granted, since there was a genuine issue of material fact. Additionally, reviewing this case would give us an opportunity to restrict Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699. __________________

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

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 75 Ohio St.3d 1218.]

SPANGLER, APPELLANT, v. KEHRES, APPELLEE. [Cite as Spangler v. Kehres, 1996-Ohio-453.] Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. (No. 95-1130—Submitted at the New Philadelphia Session April 17, 1996— Decided June 12, 1996.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 94-CA-69. __________________ Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott Co., L.P.A., and Edward L. Clark, for appellant. Sauter & Hohenberger and Kenneth R. Beddow, for appellee. __________________ {¶ 1} The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. MOYER, C.J., F. E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., concur. DOUGLAS, J., dissents. RESNICK, J., dissents separately. __________________ ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting. {¶ 2} I would reverse the court of appeals’ judgment. Summary judgment should not have been granted, since there was a genuine issue of material fact. Additionally, reviewing this case would give us an opportunity to restrict Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699. __________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Ohio 453, 75 Ohio St. 3d 1218, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spangler-v-kehres-ohio-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack