Legal Opinion

Maple Heights Teachers Ass'n v. Maple Heights Board of Education

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 1983No. 82-1068PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHoffman, J.

At issue herein is the meaning and application of the “longevity” sentence inserted at the very bottom of the salary schedule set forth in the 1979 master agreement and the association’s newsletter’s interpretation of that sentence.

The disputed sentence provides generally that longevity increments will be based on total teaching service as defined by the Ohio Revised Code. Its plain language refers to the Ohio Revised Code, not to any specific section therein. We agree with the following:

“It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that sections and acts in pari materia, that is ‘in…

2Cited by9 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Madden v. Windham Exempted Village School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. State ex rel. Walker v. Lancaster City School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. LeichtyOhio Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State ex rel. Walker v. Lancaster City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Peters v. City of JacksonOhio Court of Appeals · 1995

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API