Court Opinion

ID: 9703700
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:05:30.955056+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:51.293399
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The City raises two points in its petition for rehearing which we shall address.
The first is that the statement of facts omits the facts that Downing, Applegate, and Kittle knew of the pay policy prior to going on annual training and that during their annual training they were not available for service to the City of Columbus. The reason for not including these facts in our opinion is that they are not germane.
*846A reading of the judgment indicates that the trial court did not rely upon them. Additionally, we are of the opinion that neither fact has any bearing upon IND. CODE 10-2-4-3.
The other contention is our failure to mention the case of Northern Ohio Patrolmen's Ben. Assn. v. City of Parma (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 375, 402 N.E.2d 519. That case construed a pay provision similar to the City's in a manner favorable to the City. It is contrary to the weight of authority. Neither do we believe it appropriate authority for the City's home rule argument for the reason that Ohio's home rule provisions, according to the facts in Benevolent, are different in substance from those of Indiana and, as a result, of little value in this appeal.
The opinion herein is in all things affirmed and the petition for rehearing is denied.
RATLIFF, C.J., and SHIELDS, P.J., concur.