Legal Opinion

Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion)

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 4, 2016No. 2014-1769Published

1DissentO’Neill, J.

{¶ 54} Respectfully, I must dissent. I would hold that the uncodified language in the 2009 budget bill that extinguished the public school districts’ cause of action against the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) violates the constitutional prohibition on the passage of retroactive laws.

{¶ 55} The Retroactivity Clause, Article II, Section 28 of the Ohio Constitution, provides:

The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws, or laws impairing the obligation of contracts; but may, by general laws, authorize courts to carry into effect, upon such terms as shall be just and…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. BodykeOhio Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State ex rel. Johnston v. TaulbeeOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State v. WhiteOhio Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API