Court Opinion

ID: 9805264
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 17:45:01.028999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:41:41.806621
License: Public Domain

Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 33} This case should be dismissed as improvidently accepted. It is highly fact specific and does not involve an important or novel legal question, but rather the application of settled law.
{¶ 34} Barring a dismissal of this appeal, the better course is to allow the plaintiff to proceed with his case. It is possible that the water discharged after treatment by the village of Cardington’s wastewater-treatment plant contains levels of chemicals and compounds that are not permitted. As the court of appeals noted, in that situation, “the Village is violating the law.” 5th Dist. Morrow No. 12CA0017, 2013-0hio-3108, 2013 WL 3785273, ¶ 24. Further proceedings are necessary in order to determine whether Donald Lee is able to prove his case given all of the facts. There are insufficient grounds to support the majority’s conclusion that the village is entitled to summary judgment.
{¶ 35} Instead of reversing, I would dismiss the appeal or would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. I dissent.
O’Neill, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.