Case ID: ohio-st-3d_143/html/1201-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jodka, Appellant, v. The City of Cleveland et al., Appellees.
    [Cite as Jodka v. Cleveland, 143 Ohio St.3d 1201, 2015-Ohio-861.]
    (No. 2014-0480
    Submitted July 9, 2014
    Decided March 12, 2015.)
    Mayle, Ray & Mayle, L.L.C., Andrew R. Mayle, Jeremiah S. Ray, and Ronald J. Mayle; and Murray & Murray, Co. L.P.A., and John T. Murray, for appellant.
    Barbara Langhenry, Director of Law, and Gary Singletary, Assistant Director of Law, for appellee city of Cleveland.
    Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Gregory Y. Mersol, and Chris Bator, for appellees Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Boulder Acquisition Corp., and Xerox Corp.
   {¶ 1} The certification of conflict is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently certified.

O’Connor, C.J., and Lanzinger, Kennedy, and French, JJ., concur.

Pfeifer and O’Neill, JJ., dissent.

O’Donnell, J., not participating.