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.
75 Ohio St. 3d 1218
Spangler, Appellant, v. Kehres, Appellee.
[Cite as Spangler v. Kehres (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 1218.]
(No. 95-1130
Submitted at the New Philadelphia Session April 17, 1996
Decided June 12, 1996.)
Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott Co., L.P.A., and Edward L. Clark, for appellant.
Sauter & Hohenberger and Kenneth R. Beddow, for appellee.
dissenting. 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.
Spangler v. Kehres
75 Ohio St. 3d 1218
Case Details
75 Ohio St. 3d 1218
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!