Opinion ID: 4568765
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary-judgment standard

Text: {¶ 23} This court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Ratonel v. Roetzel & Andress, L.P.A., 147 Ohio St.3d 485, 2016-Ohio-8013, 67 N.E.3d 775, ¶ 18. Under Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears that after construing the evidence most strongly in the nonmoving party’s favor that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion. “Neither we nor the trial court may weigh the proof or choose among reasonable inferences in deciding whether summary judgment should be granted.” Perez v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 215, 218, 520 N.E.2d 198 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO (1988). At the summary-judgment stage, a “court should not reject one expert opinion for another simply because it believes one theory over the other.” Miller v. Bike Athletic Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 607, 613, 687 N.E.2d 735 (1998).