Legal Opinion
Krause v. State
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 19, 1972No. 71-779PublishedCited by 125 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
0 ’Neill, C. J.
The ultimate issue is wlietber an action based on tort is properly maintainable against the state of Ohio when it has not consented to such suit. Based on precedent, this issue would seem to be foreclosed against appellee. See Raudabaugh v. State (1917), 96 Obio St. 513, 118 N. E. 102, wherein paragraph one of the syllabus states:
“A state is not subject to suit in its own courts without its express consent.”
Paragraph two of that syllabus states:
“The provision of the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 16, as amended September 3, 1912, that ‘Suits may be brought against the…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Reed v. ReedSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Tigner v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Muskopf v. Corning Hospital DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1961
- Holytz v. City of MilwaukeeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1962
- Stone v. Arizona Highway CommissionArizona Supreme Court · 1963
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by125 opinions
- Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of HighwaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- Conley v. ShearerOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Ohio v. Madeline Marie Nursing HomesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1982
- James v. Prince George's CountyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1980
120 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.