Summary judgment: de novo review on the Civ.R. 56(C) record
A grant of summary judgment presents a question of law. In Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., the Supreme Court of Ohio explained that whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment "involves only questions of law and is considered on a de novo basis." 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1996). The court of appeals stands in the trial court's shoes, applying the same Civ.R. 56 standard to the same materials. That cuts both ways: the appellant gets fresh review, but only on the evidentiary record that was properly before the trial court.
The burden framework that decides most summary judgment appeals
Ohio courts allocate the summary judgment burdens under Dresher v. Burt. The movant must identify the portions of the record showing no genuine issue of material fact on an essential element, and "cannot discharge its initial burden under Civ.R. 56 simply by making a conclusory assertion that the nonmoving party has no evidence to prove its case." 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293 (1996). Only if the movant carries that burden does the nonmovant take on "a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Id.
On appeal, that sequence gives the losing party two distinct arguments: that the movant never carried its initial burden, and that the opposing materials created a genuine issue regardless. Both depend on Civ.R. 56(C) materials actually filed in the case. Affidavits never filed and deposition transcripts never made part of the trial court record are not before the court of appeals.
Dismissals and other rulings of law
Rulings that turn on the pleadings or on the meaning of a statute or rule are likewise reviewed without deference, because a trial court has no discretion to misapply the law. See standards of review. Before appealing a dismissal, confirm that it is final. A dismissal of fewer than all claims or parties ordinarily also requires the Civ.R. 54(B) determination, and some dismissals leave the action pending. See final appealable orders.
Discovery orders and other discretionary rulings
Discovery rulings, continuances, leave to amend, and sanctions are usually reviewed for abuse of discretion, and most are interlocutory: they are reviewed after final judgment, if at all. The notable exception is an order compelling discovery of privileged matter. "Discovery of privileged matter" is a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02(A)(3), and an order granting or denying it is final under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) if it determines the action as to that remedy and the appealing party would not have a meaningful or effective remedy after final judgment. Because disclosure of privileged material is difficult to undo after the fact, that second showing is usually where the argument centers.
Practice pointers
- Build the Rule 56 record deliberately. File the depositions, affidavits, and exhibits you rely on, and cite them by page in the opposition.
- Attack the initial burden. If the motion rested on a bare assertion that you lack evidence, say so expressly in the trial court and again on appeal.
- Separate legal error from discretion. A discovery or sanctions ruling built on a misreading of a rule is reviewed as a question of law.
- Calendar privilege orders immediately. The time to appeal a final provisional remedy order runs under App.R. 4.
Recent analysis
Ohio Saving Statute Refiling After Kohn v. Glenmede (2026)
Kohn v. Glenmede Trust Co., N.A., 2026-Ohio-4001
When an earlier action was timely commenced and later failed other than on the merits, R.C. 2305.19(A) lets the plaintiff commence a new action within one year of that failure (or within the original limitations period, if later), and every claim in it is saved, even claims whose limitations period ran before a previous use of the statute. Because the case came up as a certified conflict, the court also revived claims the plaintiff never cross-appealed.
Ohio Discretionary Immunity Is Jurisdictional: Wilkes v. ODOT (2026)
Wilkes v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2026-Ohio-3897
The Supreme Court of Ohio held that ODOT's decision not to install temporary vandal-protective fencing on a bridge under reconstruction, made with no policy requiring it, was a basic policy decision involving a high degree of discretion. ODOT was immune, the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the wrongful-death action must be dismissed, even though the case had already been tried on the merits.
Ohio R.C. 2506 Appeals and Res Judicata: Sheetz v. Centerville
Sheetz, Inc. v. Centerville, 2026-Ohio-3531
A unanimous Supreme Court of Ohio held that because claims for damages and declaratory relief cannot be brought in an R.C. Chapter 2506 administrative appeal, res judicata does not bar them in a later action. Those claims belong in a separate case, and the Sixth Circuit's contrary Moore decision was wrongly decided.
Appealing a Denied Summary Judgment After Trial in Ohio: Camara (2026)
Camara v. Gill Dairy, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-3056
When a trial court denies summary judgment because material facts are disputed and the case goes to verdict, the court of appeals must review the full trial record, not just the pretrial filings, before reversing. Pure legal error in the denial remains reviewable after trial, but labeling a fact question as legal does not let a reviewing court bypass the jury.
Ohio Final Appealable Orders: One Final Order Does Not Revive Others
Garg v. Jenkins, 2026-Ohio-2936
An appeal from an order appointing a receiver is final only as to the receivership, so it cannot carry assignments of error aimed at earlier settlement, injunction, and fee rulings. If those rulings were final, the App.R. 4(A) time to appeal them had expired; if not, the receivership order did not make them final.
Published for Ohio attorneys; not legal advice. Rules and statutes change, so confirm current text before relying on it.