Court Opinion

ID: 9771783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 16:53:14.99152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:36.618170
License: Public Domain

SPEARS, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the majority’s opinion. The court of appeals erred in holding that Ro-sow’s suit was, in substance, a suit for review of an administrative decision requiring the application of the substantial evidence rule. Rosow pleaded her case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and presented evidence in support of that claim. The jury found for Rosow on her § 1983 issue. The City failed to object to any of these actions.
I concur in affirming the judgment of the trial court solely because the City failed to attack the issues of the propriety of her § 1983 claim, the evidence supporting it, or the accompanying jury issue; these were not preserved for review by the City.
The court’s opinion should not be read as recognizing that a § 1983 cause of action arises each time a municipal employee is terminated.
WALLACE, ROBERTSON and MAUZY, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.