Golem v. Put-In-Bay

Ohio Supreme Court

Golem v. Put-In-Bay

761 N.E.2d 43, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1426, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 65

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 16, 2002

Docket01-2066

StatusPublished

This text of 761 N.E.2d 43 (Golem v. Put-In-Bay) 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

Golem v. Put-In-Bay, 761 N.E.2d 43, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1426, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 65 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Certified State Law Question, No. 300CV7740. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, certified the following questions to this court:

“1. Does a Manual giving probationary police officers greater procedural rights than those already afforded under R.C. § 737.15, et seq., impair the authority of the Mayor under R.C. 737.15 et seq.?

“2. If so, does O.R.C. § 737.15 et seq., thereby contravene the Home Rule authority conferred on the Village under § 3, Art. XVIII of the Ohio Constitution?

“3. Does ‘forced republication,’ if proven, satisfy the publication element of a claim for defamation?”

The court declines to answer the above questions. This cause is therefore dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents.

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