Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kinasz v. Dickson

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

May 3, 2018

MARY KINASZ PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT
v.
BLAKE DICKSON, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

          Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-17-875393

          FOR APPELLANT Mary Kinasz, pro se

          ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE Blake A. Dickson The Dickson Firm, L.L.C.

          BEFORE: Celebrezze, J., Kilbane, P.J., and Jones, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE.

         {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, Mary Kinasz, individually and as the executor of the estate of Justyna Kinasz ("appellant"), brings this appeal challenging the trial court's order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Blake Dickson, et al. ("Dickson"), regarding appellant's claim for legal malpractice. Specifically, appellant argues that genuine issues of material fact existed that precluded the granting of summary judgment. After a thorough review of the record and law, this court affirms.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         {¶2} The instant matter arose from a dispute between appellant and Dickson regarding Dickson's representation in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-11-766580, a nursing home negligence case. The negligence case settled in January 2013.

         {¶3} In Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-15-850029, appellant filed a complaint for legal malpractice against Dickson on August 20, 2015. On February 4, 2016, appellant filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 41(A)(1)(a). The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice on February 5, 2016.

         {¶4} Appellant refiled her legal malpractice claim against Dickson on February 3, 2017. Appellant requested $25, 000 in compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees, and costs.

         {¶5} On April 7, 2017, Dickson filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that appellant's claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations and that she failed to establish damages. Appellant filed a brief in opposition to Dickson's summary judgment motion on June 7, 2017.

         {¶6} On July 10, 2017, the trial court granted Dickson's motion for summary judgment. The trial court's judgment entry provides, in relevant part, "construing all facts in favor of [appellant] and finding no genuine issue of material fact remains, the court hereby grants [Dickson's] motion for summary judgment."

         {¶7} It is from this judgment that appellant filed the instant appeal on July 28, 2017. She assigns one error for review:

I. The trial court erred in granting [Dickson's] motion for summary judgment finding that there are no genuine issues of material fact.

         II. Law and Analysis

         A. Standard of Review

         {¶8} Summary judgment, governed by Civ.R. 56, provides for the expedited adjudication of matters where there is no material fact in dispute to be determined at trial. In order to obtain summary judgment, the moving party must show that "(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 from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion when viewing evidence in favor of the nonmoving party, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party." Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.