Legal Opinion · Dissent

Zavisin v. City of Loveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1989No. 88-1097Published

1DissentWright, J.

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion and would affirm the court of appeals’ decision below.

The facts in this case do not parallel the situations that occurred in cases upon which the majority relies. There is no evidence of the “demotionrepromotion shell game” used to illegally eliminate a position as existed in Hungler v. Cincinnati (1986), 25 Ohio St. 3d 338, 25 OBR 392, 496 N.E. 2d 912, and in Vogeler v. Cincinnati (1984), 16 Ohio App. 3d 393, 16 OBR 462, 476 N.E. 2d 676. Nor is there any evidence of abuse of discretion as in State, ex rel. Bardo, v. Lyndhurst (1988), 37 Ohio…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Bardo v. City of LyndhurstOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Hungler v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1986
  3. McCarter v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
  4. Vogeler v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1984

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API