 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kohrman9/14/2000
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY PLACING THE BURDEN UPON THE NONMOVING PARTY IN CONNECTION WITH APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT IN GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON AN ARGUMENT THAT WAS NOT RAISED BY THE PARTIES.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. IV
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY REFUSING TO ALLOW APPELLANT TO OPPOSE APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UTILIZING THE EVIDENTIARY MATERIALS ATTACHED TO APPELLEE'S MOTION.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. V
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF APPELLANT BY BASING ITS DECISION TO GRANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF APPELLEE ENTIRELY UPON MATTERS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE ORAL HEARING REGARDING THE PARTIES' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
Appellant argues summary judgment for appellee on its complaint was improper. Appellant contends appellee did not sustain its burden pursuant to Civ.R. 56 and further contends the trial court unfairly limited its consideration of the evidence in making its determination. This court must agree.
In reviewing a motion for summary judgment, this court conducts a de novo review of the trial court's decision. A court reviewing the granting of a summary judgment must follow the standards set forth in Civ.R. 56(C) *. Aglinsky v. Cleveland Bldrs. Supply Co. (1990), 68 Ohio App.3d 810. See, also, Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105.
When a court considers a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact as to any material element of its claims. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-93. If the moving party does so, the non- moving party then has a reciprocal burden to produce evidence on any issue for which that party bears the burden of production at trial. Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385; see, also, Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 108.
However, the nonmoving party is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 366, 369-70. It follows that, pursuant to the standard of Civ.R. 56, f the moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. Dresher v. Burt, supra at 293.
Although Civ.R. 56(C) and (E) specify the types of evidence that ordinarily appropriately may be considered when determining a motion, appellant's second, third, fourth and fifth assignments of error essentially assert the trial court misapplied these sections of the rule in this case. A review of both the comments made by the trial court at the oral hearing and the stated basis for its decision to grant appellee's motion lend credence to appellant's assertion.
It is well settled that the failure to object to documentary evidence submitted by a party either in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment waives any error in regard to the court's consideration of it. Rodger v. McDonald's Restaurants of Ohio, Inc. (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 256; Forster v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation(1994), 102 Ohio App.3d 744; Lytle v. City of Columbus (1990), 70 Ohio App.3d 99; Stegawski v. Cleveland Anesthesia Group, Inc. (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 78; Tye v. Bd. of Edn. of Polaris Joint Vocational School Dist. (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 63, footnote 4; cf., Mootispaw v. Eckstein, supra.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|