Ohio Supreme Court
C. E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction Co.
The C. E. Morris Company v. Foley Construction Company
54 Ohio St. 2d 279 · 376 N.E.2d 578 · 8 Ohio Op. 3d 261
Decided May 24, 1978
Good LawGood law: 113 citing cases carry treatments with no negative treatment.
Summary
The court held that the trial court's finding that the delayed steel delivery was not the proximate cause of Foley's damages was supported by some competent, credible evidence and therefore could not be reversed as against the manifest weight of the evidence. It reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the Court of Common Pleas judgment. The court also held that Morris's failure to raise the appellate standard issue in the jurisdictional memoranda did not prevent review because the issue was presented by the record.
Holdings
- Proper appellate standard for reviewing the trial court's proximate-cause finding. A judgment supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all essential elements of the case will not be reversed as against the manifest weight of the evidence. *281
- Whether the late delivery proximately caused Foley's damages. The trial court's finding that Morris's July delivery of steel was not the proximate cause of Foley's damages was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. *281
Written by LawDiver's case analysis.
How later courts treated this case
4,053 opinions cite this case
Cited
In re As.D., 2026 Ohio 3421. Cited for statement that judgments supported by competent evidence are not reversed as against manifest weight.
Cited
A.H. v. N.H., 2026 Ohio 3375. The court invokes this evidentiary formulation as part of its manifest-weight analysis.
Cited
In re A.F., 2026 Ohio 2998. The court cites C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Construction for the definition of competent evidence.
Cited
In re N.T., 2026 Ohio 2997. Supports deference to trial court’s factual determinations.
Cited
In re A.W., 2026 Ohio 2996. Citing C.E. Morris Co. for standard of review.
See all citing casesFilter by court, year and treatment in LawDiver. Free, no login.
In this case
Opinion of the Court
The main issue raised by the instant cause is whether the trial court’s ruling that the July delivery of steel was not the proximate cause of damages suffered by Foley was correctly determined by the Court of Appeals to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.1
Judgments supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the case will not be reversed by a reviewing court as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Chicago Ornamental Iron Co. v. Rook (1915), 93 Ohio St. 152, 160; Portage Markets Co. v. George (1924), 111 Ohio St. 775 (paragraph *281one of the syllabus); and 3 Ohio Jurisprudence 2d 817, Appellate Review, Section 820, and the cases cited therein.
The trial court’s determination that the late steel delivery was not the proximate cause of Foley’s failure, to complete the highway on time is supported by such- evidence. Trial testimony revealed that Foley requested a March steel delivery date from Morris and' that Morris did not deliver the steel until July. However, there was also testimony that, while Foley completed the project 41 days late2, it was on schedule when Morris delivered its steel. Witnesses also testified that, for 45 days after Morris delivered its steel and Foley could have begun to use that steel in bridge construction, the steel was- stored at the construction site awaiting state and railway approval of erection plans which either Foley or a subcontractor other than Morris was responsible for delivering. Finally, there was also testimony that at least some of Foley’s- inability to meet its deadline was due to its failure to staff the project with adequate personnel. Since the record discloses that the trial court had competent evidence before it on which to base its finding that Morris’ July delivery of steel was not the proximate cause of any damages suffered by Foley, we must reverse the Court of Appeals and affirm the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas.3
Judgment reversed.
O’Neill, C. J., Celebrezze, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locheb, JJ., concur.
Herbert, J., concurs in the judgment only.
Foley also contends that “[w]hen a case is heard on the merits pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify, the Supreme Court of Ohio will not consider any proposition of law which is not raised in the memoranda supporting or opposing claimed jurisdiction.” Morris’ failure to so raise the question of whether the Court of Appeals applied the proper standard when it determined whether the trial court’s proximate cause ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence does not bar this court from deciding that issue because a “cause properly appealed to this court is here for the proper determination of all questions presented by the record * * *” (Winslow v. Ohio Bus Line Co. [1947], 148 Ohio St. 101), and the standard applied by the Court of Appeals is clearly presented by the record in the instant cause. Foley’s contention is, therefore, without merit.
Foley was actually 141 days late finishing the project. However,, only 41 of those days were treated as late days by the state.
Morris also contends that in its prior ruling as well as in-its determination on proximate cause, the Court of Appeals overruled' the judgment of the trial court as being against the manifest weight of the. evidence in violation of R. C. 2321.18 and App. R. 12 (,C). Since we. find that, in any case, the trial court was correct when it determined that the late steel delivery was not the proximate cause of any damages-suffered by Foley, it is not necessary for this court to address Morris’ contention.
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
- Eastley, Admr., Appellee v. Volkman; Huffman, Appellant132 Ohio St. 3d 328 (2012)
- Seasons Coal Company, Inc. v. City of Cleveland10 Ohio St. 3d 77 (1984)
- The State of Ohio v. Awan22 Ohio St. 3d 120 (1986)
- The State of Ohio, and Cross-Appellee v. Schiebel, and55 Ohio St. 3d 71 (1990)
- Davis, n.k.a. Baker v. Flickinger77 Ohio St. 3d 415 (1997)