Dougherty v. Torrence
This text of 461 N.E.2d 1310 (Dougherty v. Torrence) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In Dougherty I, this court issued a clear directive on remand to the court of appeals. Although the lower court is technically correct in that appellant had originally briefed only one assignment of error, we specifically [141]*141ordered a consideration of the issue of whether the operation of a personal vehicle precludes R.C. 701.02 immunity status. An inferior court has no discretion to disregard the clear mandate of a superior court. State, ex rel. Potain, v. Mathews (1979), 59 Ohio St. 2d 29, 32 [13 O.O.3d 17]. See, also, Brown v. Borchers Ford, Inc. (1978), 53 Ohio St. 2d 171 [7 O.O.3d 319].
We therefore repeat our directive to the court of appeals to consider the issue of whether R.C. 701.02 immunity attaches when the fireman is operating his personal vehicle on the way to the firehouse in response to an emergency call, on the arguments as briefed in that court originally.
Judgment accordingly.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
461 N.E.2d 1310, 10 Ohio St. 3d 139, 10 Ohio B. 460, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dougherty-v-torrence-ohio-1984.