Case Name: Doe et al., Appellants, v. Massillon City School District et al., Appellees
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 2008-05-15
Citations: 118 Ohio St. 3d 1210
Docket Number: No. 2007-1311
Parties: Doe et al., Appellants, v. Massillon City School District et al., Appellees.
Judges: Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, Third Service
Volume: 118
Pages: 1210–1211

Head Matter:
Doe et al., Appellants, v. Massillon City School District et al., Appellees.
[Cite as Doe v. Massillon City School Dist., 118 Ohio St.3d 1210, 2008-Ohio-2233.]
(No. 2007-1311
Submitted April 23, 2008
Decided May 15, 2008.)
Nicodemo & Wilson, L;L.C., and Brian R. Wilson; and Donald M. Benson, for appellants.
Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., Nicole M. Donovsky, and Richard W. Ross, for appellees.
Allen Sehulman & Associates, Co., L.P.A., and Stacie L. Roth; and Equal Justice Foundation and Judith L. Goldstein, urging reversal for amici curiae Children’s Defense Fund, Equal Justice Foundation, and Ohio Association for Justice.
Ennis, Roberts & Fischer Co., L.P.A., C. Bronston McCord III, Pamela A. Leist, and Jeremy J. Neff, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio School Boards Association.

Opinion:
{¶ 1} The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently accepted.
Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Pfeifer, J., dissents and would reverse the judgment of the court of appeals for the reasons stated in his concurrence in Garrett v. Sandusky (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 624 N.E.2d 704.