X hits on this document





11 / 15

{¶ 28} “16. The findings in the magistrate’s decision were incorrect and

improper, and said findings were improperly used against [appellants]. * * *”4

{¶ 29} Under these assignments of error, appellants complain that an oral

hearing was not conducted with respect to the material issues in the case, that

they were not permitted to respond to the motion, and that judgment should not

have been granted against them.

{¶ 30} This court reviews a trial court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo. Ekstrom v. Cuyahoga Cty. Community College, 150 Ohio App.3d 169,

2002-Ohio-6228. Before summary judgment may be granted, a court must

determine that “(1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be

litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3)

it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one

conclusion, and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving

party, that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party.” State ex rel. Dussell v.

Lakewood Police Dept., 99 Ohio St.3d 299, 300-301, 2003-Ohio-3652, citing State

ex rel. Duganitz v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 77 Ohio St.3d 190, 191,

1996-Ohio-326. The moving party carries an initial burden of setting forth

specific facts that demonstrate his or her entitlement to summary judgment.

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293, 1996-Ohio-107. If the movant

4 The sixteenth assignment of error also challenges service of the magistrate’s decision. This argument was addressed under the first assignment of error.

Document info
Document views55
Page views55
Page last viewedFri Jan 20 20:53:44 UTC 2017