History
  • No items yet
midpage
Norris v. Budgake
89 Ohio St. 3d 208
| Ohio | 2000
|
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. Budgake’s uncontroverted summary judgment evidence established that the records that Norris requested did not exist. Budgake had no duty to create new documents to satisfy Norris’s request. State ex rel. Taxpayers Coalition v. Lakewood (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 385, 389-390, 715 N.E.2d 179, 183; State ex rel. White v. Goldsberry (1999), 85 Ohio St.3d 153, 154, 707 N.E.2d 496, 497. And Norris failed to respond by affidavit or as otherwise provided by Civ.R. 56 to set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine triable issue that would have precluded summary judgment. See Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197, 1199; Civ.R. 56(E). Therefore, Norris was not entitled to the writ.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: Norris v. Budgake
Court Name: Ohio Supreme Court
Date Published: Jun 21, 2000
Citation: 89 Ohio St. 3d 208
Docket Number: No. 00-323
Court Abbreviation: Ohio
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.