Hubbard v. Canton City School Board of Education

722 N.E.2d 1025, 88 Ohio St. 3d 14
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided February 9, 2000·No. Nos. 98-2577 and 98-2667·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinions

[15]*15The opinion of the court of appeals is vacated for the reason that the court of appeals lacked subject-matter jurisdiction for lack of a final appealable order. See, e.g., Burger v. Cleveland Hts. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 188, 718 N.E.2d 912; Estate of Weitzel v. Cuyahoga Falls (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 200, 718 N.E.2d 921; Braden v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 206, 718 N.E.2d 924.

Therefore, the cause is remanded to the trial court for determination of plaintiffs’ remaining claims.

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

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

Hubbard v. Canton City School Board of Education, 722 N.E.2d 1025, 88 Ohio St. 3d 14 (Ohio 2000).

722 N.E.2d 1025 (Hubbard v. Canton City School Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hubbard v. Canton City School Board of Education
97 Ohio St. 3d 451 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2002)
Stevens v. Ackman
2001 Ohio 249 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2001)
Klein v. Portage County
745 N.E.2d 532 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2000)
Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn.
2000 Ohio 259 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2000)