Hall v. Ponderosa Steak House, Unpublished Decision (7-20-2001)
Hall v. Ponderosa Steak House, Unpublished Decision (7-20-2001)
Opinion of the Court
Hall failed to present a specific assignment of error in her brief to this court. However, under a heading "SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT, she made the following statement, which we have construed as her assignment of error:
"The Trial Court committed reversible error when it decided that Appellant, Chemise Hall, did not present sufficient evidence to demonstrate Appellee had knowledge of a dangerous condition substantially certain to result in injury."
Civ.R. 56(C) governs motions for summary judgment at trial and on appeal. After carefully reviewing the record, considering the arguments presented on appeal and reviewing the applicable law, this court finds that even when the evidence is construed in a light most favorable to appellants, no genuine issue of material fact remains and appellee is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Hall's assignment of error is not well-taken and is denied.
We affirm the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas and adopt its January 17, 2001 Opinion and Judgment Entry as our own. See Appendix A. Hall is ordered to pay the court costs of this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. See, also, 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4, amended 1/1/98.
___________________________ Peter M. Handwork, J.
Richard W. Knepper, J. and Mark L. Pietrykowski, P.J. CONCUR.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.