 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Turvey v. Ocheltree7/29/2005
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
{ } Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal the trial court's decision of December 8, 2004, granting Defendant-Appellee State Farm Insurance Company's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{ } The relevant facts in this matter are undisputed:
{ } On December 24, 2000, Clyde D. Shaffer and Katherine I. Shaffer were involved in an automobile accident caused by the negligence of Daniel C. Ocheltree. Both Shaffers died as a result of the injuries they sustained in said accident.
{ } The Shaffers had a daughter named Claudia Dalcoma, who is the biological mother of Joell Dalcoma. Claudia Dalcoma abandoned her daughter Joell in the late 1960's or early 1970's. Joell's father remarried and his new wife, Martha Dalcoma, legally adopted Joell.
{ } Appellant Joell Dalcoma has two children, Nathan Hughey and Sierra Pickens. At the time of the accident, Joell Dalcoma and her children were insured under an automobile policy of insurance issued by State Farm Insurance Company.
{ } Appellants Joell Dalcoma, Nathan Hughey and Sierra Pickens filed wrongful death beneficiary claims with State Farm for the deaths of their boliogical grandparents. State Farm denied such claims and Appellants filed a Complaint with the Tuscarawas County Common Pleas Court.
{ } On October 22, 2004, Appellee State Farm Insurance Company filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment pertaining to the claims of Joell Dalcoma, Sierra Pickens and Nathan Hughey.
{ } An oral hearing on said motion for partial summary judgment was held on November 22, 2004.
{ } By Entry dated December 8, 2004, the trial court granted Appellee's motion for partial summary judgment.
{ } It is from this decision that Plaintiffs-Appellants now appeal, assigning the following error for review:
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{ } "I. THE LOWER COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANTS BECAUSE THE ADOPTION OF JOEL DALCOMA DID NOT CUT OFF HER RELATIONSHIP WITH HER NATURAL GRANDPARENTS, THE DECEDENTS."
{ } "Summary Judgment Standard"
{ } 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. The Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio St.3d 35, 36. Civ.R. 56(C) provides, in pertinent part:
{ } "Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from such evidence or stipulation and only therefrom, that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, such party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in his favor."
{ } Pursuant to the above rule, a trial court may not enter a summary judgment if it appears a material fact is genuinely disputed. The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The moving party may not make a conclusory assertion that the non-moving party has no evidence
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|