Title: Hillyer v. Painesville Twp. Local Bd. of Edn.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Hillyer v. Painesville Twp. Local Bd. of Edn., 87 Ohio St.3d 202, 1999-Ohio-18.] 
 
 
 
 
HILLYER, APPELLEE, v. PAINESVILLE TOWNSHIP LOCAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, 
APPELLANT, ET AL. 
[Cite as Hillyer v. Painesville Twp. Local Bd. of Edn. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 202.] 
Tort reform – Am.Sub.H.B. No. 350 unconstitutional in toto – Court of appeals’ 
judgment affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial 
Lawyers v. Sheward. 
(Nos. 98-387 and 98-546 – Submitted September 15, 1999 – Decided November 
17, 1999.) 
APPEAL from and CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Lake County, No. 97-L-
161. 
__________________ 
 
Friedman, Domiano & Smith Co., L.P.A., and Jeffrey H. Friedman, for 
appellee. 
 
Baran, Piper, Tarkowsky, Fitzgerald & Theis Co., L.P.A., and Marc A. 
Lehotsky, for appellant. 
__________________ 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of State ex 
rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 
N.E.2d 1062. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., concur separately. 
 
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
2
 
DOUGLAS, J., concurring.  For the reasons stated in my concurrence in 
Burger v. Cleveland Hts. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 188, 718 N.E.2d 912, I respectfully 
concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J., dissenting.  I disagree with the decision of the majority, 
which affirms the judgment of the court of appeals on the authority of State ex rel. 
Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 
1062.  The parties in this case did not challenge the constitutionality of 
Am.Sub.H.B. No. 350, and, therefore, I believe that the case should have been 
decided on the issue raised.  While it is true that if Sheward is to be followed in the 
instant case, the question whether R.C. 2744.02(C) as amended by Am.Sub.H.B. 
No. 350 should be applied retroactively to the instant case would be rendered 
moot, I would not want a vote of concurrence in this case to in any way suggest 
that I believe Sheward should necessarily be followed by this court in the future.  
Therefore, I dissent. 
 
It is not unusual for this court to summarily decide pending cases that raise 
legal issues dependent on those recently decided by the court in another case.  It 
has been my past practice in such circumstances to follow the law announced in 
the earlier case, even where I dissented from the decision of the majority in that 
earlier case.  My reason is based on my belief that once this court announces its 
opinion on an issue of law, that principle of law should be applied consistently to 
all persons similarly situated, whether or not I agree with that principle. 
 
Regrettably, I am compelled to make an exception to that practice in this 
case.  In view of irregularities in the assumption of jurisdiction and the inclusion of 
inappropriate references to the conduct of the General Assembly in State ex rel. 
Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, as is more fully described in my 
 
3
dissent therein, I cannot agree that Sheward should control the outcome of this 
case. 
 
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting 
opinion. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  This case involves issues identical to 
those raised in Burger v. Cleveland Hts. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 188, 718 N.E.2d 
912.  I dissented in Burger.  Therefore, I adopt my dissent from Burger in its 
entirety in this case. 
 
COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.