Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a \hearing\ does not contemplate an oral presentation unless required by express language or context
• holding that trial court has authority to dispense with oral hearing for summary judgment motion
• holding that error was harmless where, after granting summary judgment, the trial court considered the non-movant's response and reconfirmed its ruling
• holding that a trial court is not required to afford the parties oral argument on summary judgment motions
• holding that error was harmless where, after granting summary judgment, the trial court considered the non-movant’s response and reconfirmed its ruling
• holding that trial court has authority to dispense with oral hearing for summary judgment motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).