Fogle v. Village of Bentleyville

Ohio Supreme Court

Fogle v. Village of Bentleyville

878 N.E.2d 638, 116 Ohio St. 3d 301

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedDecember 13, 2007

DocketNo. 2007-1433

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 878 N.E.2d 638 (Fogle v. Village of Bentleyville) 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

Fogle v. Village of Bentleyville, 878 N.E.2d 638, 116 Ohio St. 3d 301 (Ohio 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the courts of appeals is reversed on the authority of Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77, 2007-Ohio-4839, 873 N.E.2d 878, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals with instructions for the court of appeals to conduct a de novo review of the law and facts. If, after that review, only questions of law remain, the court of appeals may resolve the appeal. If genuine issues of material fact remain, the court of appeals may remand the cause to the trial court for further development of the facts necessary to resolve the immunity issue.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hubbell v. Xenia. O’Donnell, J., dissents.

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

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted.

{¶ 2} The judgment of the courts of appeals is reversed on the authority of Hubbell v. Xenia, 115 Ohio St.3d 77, 2007-Ohio-4839, 873 N.E.2d 878, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals with instructions for the court of appeals to conduct a de novo review of the law and facts. If, after that review, only questions of law remain, the court of appeals may resolve the appeal. If genuine issues of material fact remain, the court of appeals may remand the cause to the trial court for further development of the facts necessary to resolve the immunity issue.

Moyer, C.J., and Lundberg Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Hubbell v. Xenia. O’Donnell, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

878 N.E.2d 638, 116 Ohio St. 3d 301, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fogle-v-village-of-bentleyville-ohio-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack