HUSTON v. KONIECZNY

No. 89-834.

52 Ohio St. 3d 214 (1990)

HUSTON ET AL., APPELLEES, v. KONIECZNY ET AL., APPELLEES. CORDELL ET AL., APPELLANTS.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Decided July 11, 1990.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Murray & Murray Co., L.P.A., W. Patrick Murray, William H. Bartle and Steven C. Bechtel, for appellees Robert Huston, Roger Huston and Joyce Huston.

Eastman & Smith, Richard E. Antonini and Joseph A. Gregg, for appellant Goodsite.

Schuller & Bennett and James L. Schuller, for appellants Ronald Cordell, Harry Cordell, Sr., Linda Cordell, Harry Cordell, Jr. and Robert Chio.

Manahan, Pietrykowski, Bamman & DeLaney and Cormac B. DeLaney, for appellee Bodnar.

Sauter & Hohenberger and Wayne P. Hohenberger, for appellees Lowell Rouanzoin, William Rouanzoin and Frances Rouanzoin.


H. BROWN, J.

Pursuant to Civ. R. 56(C), we must determine whether appellants were entitled to summary judgment. We find that they are not, because genuine issues of material fact exist; we affirm the decision of the court of appeals.

Our analysis of the issues requires three steps. First, we must determine whether the driver of the car was intoxicated. If the evidence supports an affirmative finding, we must resolve two additional issues. We must decide whether...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases