Court Opinion

ID: 6786135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-21 01:03:24.538273+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:02:56.871719
License: Public Domain

{¶ 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.