Ohio Supreme Court

Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co.

Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Company, Inc. Toledo Edison Company

54 Ohio St. 2d 64 · 375 N.E.2d 46 · 8 Ohio Op. 3d 73

Decided April 19, 1978

Good LawGood law: 67 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.

Download PDF

SummaryHoldingsLater treatmentOpinion of the Court

Summary

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the Court of Appeals' affirmance of summary judgment for the defendant employers. The court held that under Civ. R. 56(E) a party opposing a properly supported summary judgment motion may not rest on the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings but must set forth specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial, and that summary judgment is appropriate upon a tripartite demonstration: no genuine issue as to any material fact, entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion adverse to the nonmovant, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Because the burden of showing no genuine issue rests on the movant, and because the evidence construed most favorably to appellants showed they had presented no case for recovery, the court concluded appellees were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Holdings

  • Whether a nonmovant may avoid summary judgment by resting on the allegations or denials of its pleadings.. No. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in Civ. R. 56, the adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings; his response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in the rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial, and unsupported allegations in the pleadings do not suffice to necessitate denial of summary judgment. 54 Ohio St. 2d at 66
  • What showing entitles a movant to summary judgment and who bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.. Summary judgment is appropriate upon a tripartite demonstration that (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion is made, who is entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor; the burden of showing that no genuine issue exists as to any material fact falls upon the moving party. 54 Ohio St. 2d at 66-67

Written by LawDiver's case analysis.

How later courts treated this case

2,562 opinions cite this case

  • Cited

    Discover Bank v. Smith, 2026 Ohio 3501. Cited for the elements of a summary‑judgment motion.

  • Cited

    In re Spoerl v. Wiseman, 2026 Ohio 3197. The court used this rule in describing the governing summary-judgment standard.

  • Cited

    Adam Adair v. Landis Properties, Inc., 2008 Ohio 4593. The court cites it as support for the stated summary-judgment standard.

  • Cited

    Hoyt, Inc., Appellant v. Gordon & Associates, Inc., Appellees, 104 Ohio App. 3d 598. cites for burden discussion

  • Cited

    Morris v. Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, 35 Ohio St. 3d 45. cited for the principle that lack of response alone does not mandate summary judgment

See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.

In this case

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Civ. R. 56(E) provides, in relevant part:

“* * * "When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be •entered against him.”

Given the requirement of Civ. R. 56(E)1 that a party *66set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue' for trial, that party must so perform if he is to avoid summary judgment. State, ex rel. Garfield Hts., v. Nadratowski (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 441, 442-43, 349 N. E. 2d 298-Unsupported allegations in the pleadings do not suffice to necessitate the denial of a summary judgment. The principal function of Civ. R. 56(E) is to enable movement beyond allegations in the pleadings, and to analyze the evidence so as to ascertain whether an actual need for a trial. exists.2

The appositeness of rendering a summary judgment hinges upon the tripartite demonstration: (1) that there' is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) that the-moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, who is. entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor.

The burden of showing that no genuine issue exists as. to any material fact falls upon the moving party in requesting a summary judgment.3 *67.reasonable minds could only conclude that appellants had

Construing the evidence most favorably to appellants, presented no case for recovery from appellees. On the evidence presented with these motions for summary judgment, there obtained no genuine issue of any material fact. Appellees therefore were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

In view of the foregoing, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., Heebeet, Celebeezze, Stephenson, P. Beown, Sweeney and Lochee, JJ., concur.

Stephenson, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting for W. Beown, J.

“‘Fundamentally, summary judgment is governed by Civil Rule 56.” Olverson V. Butler (1976), 45 Ohio App. 2d 9, 11, 340 N. E. 2d 436.

“‘An unsupported allegation in the pleadings is not sufficient to require a denial of a summary judgment. The main purpose of the summary judgment statute is to enable a party to go behind allegations in the pleadings and assess the proof in order to see whether there is a genuine need for trial.” Cunningham v. J. A. Myers Co. (1964), 176 Ohio St. 410, 413, 200 N. E. 2d 305 (explaining R. C. 2311.041 [D]).

R. C. 2311.041(D) provided, in relevant part:

“* * * When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this section, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this section, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.”

R. C. 2311.041 has been superseded by Civ. R. 56.

“The Ohio summary judgment statute was taken from Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The federal courts have * * * established the rule that, on motion for summary judgment, the burden of establishing that the material facts are not in dispute and that no *67genuine issue of facts exists is on the party moving for the summary judgment.” Hamlin v. McAlpin Co. (1964), 176 Ohio St. 517, 519-20, 196 N. E. 2d 781 (explaining R. C. 2311.041).

Research the next case the same way

Everything on this page, for any of 10 million opinions.

  • Search every way lawyers do

    Citation, case name, boolean with /s and /p, or a plain-English question. Free, no login.

  • See what still holds

    Every case shows how later courts treated it: followed, distinguished, limited or overruled.

  • Check a brief before you file

    CiteCheck reads your brief and flags cites that don't exist, don't match, or aren't good law.

  • Use it where you work

    The LawDiver connector brings real caselaw into Claude, ChatGPT and Cursor. An API for builders.

Try CiteCheck free or create a free account for AI research and saved folders

Related landmark cases

All landmark cases·Browse by topic