ARRESTED OR DIRECTED THE ARREST OF THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS AND THAT EVIDENCE OF THE INITIATION, INSTIGATING AND INDUCING OF THE STARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES TO MAKE THE ARREST OF THE *Page 8 PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THEIR CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FALSE ARREST, WAS AND IS A SUBSTANTIALLY AND PREJUDICIALLY ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF LAW.
{¶ 19} "IV. WITH RESPECT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE PLAINTIFFS'/APPELLANTS' 42 US CODE § 1983 CLAIM AGAINST DEPUTY CRAIG KENNEDY AND DEPUTY DARIN BAAD, THE TRIAL COURT [SIC] FINDING THAT OFFICERS KENNEDY AND BAAD HAD PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS - RICHARD HARVEY AND LINDA HARVEY FOR CRIMINAL TRESPASSING IS ERRONEOUS AND UNSUPPORTED BY AND CONTRADICTED BY THE RECORD WHICH CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL AND PLENTIFUL EVIDENCE OF THE ABSENCE AND LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND WHICH, AT THE LEAST, DEMONSTRATES THE EXISTENCE OF A BONA FIDE AND GENUINE DISPUTE UPON THE ISSUE OF ABSENCE AND/OR A LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE TO ARREST THE PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS.
{¶ 20} "V. WITH RESPECT TO THE TRIAL COURT'S DISMISSAL OF THE PLAINTIFFS'/APPELLANTS 42 US CODE § 1983 CLAIM AGAINST DEPUTY KENNEDY AND DEPUTY BAAD, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED: 1) IN FINDING THAT THE RECORD CONTAINS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT DEPUTY KENNEDY'S OR DEPUTY BAAD'S CONDUCT VIOLATED ANY OF THE PLAINTIFFS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; AND 2) IN FINDING THAT THE RECORD CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE THAT DEPUTY KENNEDY AND/OR DEPUTY BAAD IN THEIR ACTIONS AND BY THEIR WARRANTLESS ARREST OF THE PLAINTIFFS ENGAGED IN ANY CONDUCT THAT A REASONABLE LAW ENFORCEMENT *Page 9 OFFICER WOULD OR SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY KNOWN WAS A VIOLATION OF THE PLAINTIFFS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS; AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THAT SAID OFFICERS WERE ENTITLED TO BE INSULATED FROM AND IMMUNIZED AGAINST LIABILITY BY THE DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY.
{¶ 21} "VI. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED SUBSTANTIAL AND PREJUDICAL ERROR BY NOT OBSERVING AND APPLYING THE ESTABLISHED REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR THE CONSIDERATION AND DETERMINATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTIONS, WHICH ERRORS INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO: THE COURT'S FAILURE TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE ENTIRE RECORD INCLUDING ALL OF THE DEPOSITIONS, AFFIDAVITS, PRIOR TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS, ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES MADE A PART OF THE RECORD JUDICIALLY NOTICED DOCUMENTS AND PRIOR JUDGMENT ENTRIES AND OTHER EVIDENTIARY MATERIAL WHICH WERE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD; AND THE FAILURE OF THE COURT TO CONSTRUE ALL OF THE EVIDENTIARY FACTUAL MATERIAL AS CONTAINED IN THE RECORD IN A MANNER MOST FAVORABLE TO THE PLAINTIFFS.
{¶ 22} "VII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO GRANT THE PLAINTIFFS'/APPELLANTS' REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR THE TAKING OF THE DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT/APPELLANT - TIM VANDERSALL AND IN FAILING TO GRANT THE PLAINTIFFS'/APPELLANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES - REPUBLIC SERVICES OF OHIO II, LLC AND TIM *Page 10 VANDERSALL TO COOPERATE AND SUBMIT TO THE TAKING OF SAID DEPOSITION."
{¶ 23} Summary judgment proceedings present the appellate court with the unique opportunity of reviewing the evidence in the same manner as the trial court. Smiddy v.