Case ID: ohio-st-3d_99/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Yates et al., Appellants, v. Mansfield Board of Education, Appellee.
    [Cite as Yates v. Mansfield Bd. of Edn., 99 Ohio St.3d 48, 2003-Ohio-2461.]
    (No. 2002-2242
    Submitted March 25, 2003
    Decided May 16, 2003.)
   {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal on Proposition of Law No. I is allowed. Briefing is to proceed on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 2} The cause is allowed on Proposition of Law No. II. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings on Proposition of Law No. II consistent with Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 451, 2002-Ohio-6718, 780 N.E.2d 543.

Robert J. Vecchio Co., L.P.A., and Robert J. Vecchio, for appellants.

Lutz & Oxley Co., L.P.A., Fred M. Oxley and Erin N. Cahill, for appellee.

Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur.

Cook, J., dissents.