Yates v. Mansfield Board of Education

99 Ohio St. 3d 48
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 16, 2003·No. No. 2002-2242·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal on Proposition of Law No. I is allowed. Briefing is to proceed on Proposition of Law No. I.

{¶ 2} The cause is allowed on Proposition of Law No. II. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings on Proposition of Law No. II consistent with Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 451, 2002-Ohio-6718, 780 N.E.2d 543.

Robert J. Vecchio Co., L.P.A., and Robert J. Vecchio, for appellants. Lutz & Oxley Co., L.P.A., Fred M. Oxley and Erin N. Cahill, for appellee. Moyer, C.J., Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton and O’Con-nor, JJ., concur. Cook, J., dissents.

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

Yates v. Mansfield Board of Education, 99 Ohio St. 3d 48 (Ohio 2003).

99 Ohio St. 3d 48 (Yates v. Mansfield Board of Education) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Yates v. Mansfield Board of Education
808 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2004)