Case Citator › Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd.

Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd.

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
59 Ohio St. 3d 108
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
140 of 140
Citing cases (total)
1,066
Treatment dates
1996
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. is limited: all 140 flagged citations were read, and the confirmed limiting treatment is listed below. The citing opinions themselves did not adversely treat Wing; they positively applied it, used the nearby treatment word for a motion, assignment of error, statute, or unrelated authority, or merely reported that Dresher v. Burt had modified or clarified Wing.
More on how this was screened

Because those lower-court recognizers could not themselves limit Supreme Court of Ohio precedent, this record is anchored on and quotes the actual treating opinion in Dresher.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,066 later cases cite Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd.; 140 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd.?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court of Ohio limited Wing's third syllabus paragraph because its summary-judgment burden rule was too broad and failed to account for the moving party's initial burden under Civ.R. 56.

    Dresher v. Burt · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    We now believe that this holding in Wing is too broad. Specifically, paragraph three of the syllabus in Wing fails to account for, among other things, the burden Civ.R. 56 places upon a moving party. We therefore limit paragraph three of the syllabus in Wing to bring it into conformity with Mitseff, supra, 38 Ohio St.3d 112, 526 N.E.2d 798, Celotex, supra, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265, the requirements of Civ.R. 56, and our discussion and holdings supra.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace