Essman v. Portsmouth

Ohio Supreme Court

Essman v. Portsmouth

941 N.E.2d 802, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1544

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 16, 2011

Docket2010-2253

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 941 N.E.2d 802 (Essman v. Portsmouth) 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.

Bluebook

Essman v. Portsmouth, 941 N.E.2d 802, 127 Ohio St. 3d 1544 (Ohio 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Scioto App. No. 09CA3325, 2010-Ohio-4837. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 3 of the court of appeals’ Entry filed December 13, 2010:

“Does a political subdivision’s failure to upgrade an inadequate sewer system constitute a proprietary function within the meaning of R.C. 2744.01(G)(2)(d) so as to subject a political subdivision to liability under R.C. 2744.02(B)(2)?”

O’Donnell, J., dissents.

The conflict case is H. Hafner & Sons, Inc. v. Cincinnati Metro. Sewer Dist. (1997), 118 Ohio App.3d 792, 694 N.E.2d 111.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2010-1970, Essman v. Portsmouth, Scioto App. No. 09CA3325, 2010-Ohio-4837.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI