Sabo v. Schott
639 N.E.2d 783, 70 Ohio St. 3d 527
Opinion
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. Plaintiffs allegation that he was fired as a result of having testified truthfully, albeit unfavorably to the defendants, if proven to be true, would constitute conduct on the part of the defendants which violates the public policy of this state. This cause is remanded to the trial court to apply Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377, 639 N.E.2d 51.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Sabo v. Schott, 639 N.E.2d 783, 70 Ohio St. 3d 527 (Ohio 1994).
639 N.E.2d 783 (Sabo v. Schott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
ZAJC v. Hycomp, Inc.
873 N.E.2d 337 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Reust v. Alaska Petroleum Contractors, Inc.
127 P.3d 807 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2005)
Stephen B. Himmel v. Ford Motor Company
342 F.3d 593 (Sixth Circuit, 2004)
Hicks v. Bryan Medical Group, Inc.
287 F. Supp. 2d 795 (N.D. Ohio, 2003)
Wilmot v. Forest City Auto Parts, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2000)
Ohio Court of Appeals, 2000
Anders v. Specialty Chemical Resources, Inc.
700 N.E.2d 39 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1997)
Gall v. Quaker City Castings, Inc.
874 F. Supp. 161 (N.D. Ohio, 1995)
Trader v. People Working Cooperatively, Inc.
663 N.E.2d 335 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)