Geretz v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

Ohio Supreme Court

Geretz v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.

846 N.E.2d 532, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1421

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 26, 2006

Docket2006-0405

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 846 N.E.2d 532 (Geretz v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.) 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

Geretz v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 846 N.E.2d 532, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1421 (Ohio 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Erie App. No. E-05-042, 2006-Ohio-321. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at paragraph 5 of the court of appeals’ Decision and Journal Entry filed January 27, 2006:

“Did the one-time special payment made by appellee General Motors Corporation to appellants constitute holiday pay remuneration such that appellant union members, laid off over the July 4,1998, holiday weekend due to a strike, were not entitled to unemployment compensation for that week?”

The conflict cases are Ashwell v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Montgomery App. No. 20522, 2005-Ohio-1928; Brown v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Defiance App. No. 4-05-07, 2005-Ohio-5887; Futey v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Richland App. No. 04 CA 14, 2004-Ohio-5400; Rodriguez v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Cuyahoga App. Nos. 86111 and 86134, 2006-Ohio-97; Nicolas v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Franklin App. No. 04AP-771, 2005-Ohio-2635; and Burns v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Trumbull App. Nos. 2004-T-0071 and 2004-T-0072, 2005-Ohio-6290.

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

Erie App. No. E-05-042, 2006-Ohio-321. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at paragraph 5 of the court of appeals’ Decision and Journal Entry filed January 27, 2006:

“Did the one-time special payment made by appellee General Motors Corporation to appellants constitute holiday pay remuneration such that appellant union members, laid off over the July 4,1998, holiday weekend due to a strike, were not entitled to unemployment compensation for that week?”

The conflict cases are Ashwell v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Montgomery App. No. 20522, 2005-Ohio-1928; Brown v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Defiance App. No. 4-05-07, 2005-Ohio-5887; Futey v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Richland App. No. 04 CA 14, 2004-Ohio-5400; Rodriguez v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Cuyahoga App. Nos. 86111 and 86134, 2006-Ohio-97; Nicolas v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Franklin App. No. 04AP-771, 2005-Ohio-2635; and Burns v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., Trumbull App. Nos. 2004-T-0071 and 2004-T-0072, 2005-Ohio-6290.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

846 N.E.2d 532, 109 Ohio St. 3d 1421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geretz-v-ohio-dept-of-job-family-servs-ohio-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack