Title: Spangler v. Kehres

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

SPANGLER, APPELLANT, V. KEHRES, APPELLEE. 
1 
[Cite as Spangler v. Kehres (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
2 
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. 
3 
 
(No. 95-1130 -- Submitted at the New Philadelphia Session April 17, 
4 
1996 -- Decided June 12, 1996.) 
5 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 94-CA-
6 
69. 
7 
__________ 
8 
 
Clark, Perdue, Roberts & Scott Co., L.P.A., and Edward L. Clark, for 
9 
appellant. 
10 
 
Sauter & Hohenberger and Kenneth R. Beddow, for appellee. 
11 
__________ 
12 
 
The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently 
13 
allowed. 
14 
 
MOYER, C.J., F. E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and STRATTON, JJ., 
15 
concur. 
16 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents. 
17 
 
RESNICK, J., dissents separately. 
18 
 
2
 
ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, J., dissenting.  I would reverse the court of 
1 
appeals’ judgment.  Summary judgment should not have been granted, 
2 
since there was a genuine issue of material fact.  Additionally, reviewing 
3 
this case would give us an opportunity to restrict Marchetti v. Kalish (1990), 
4 
53 Ohio St.3d 95, 559 N.E.2d 699. 
5 
 
6