Legal Opinion

Zavisin v. City of Loveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 2, 1989No. 88-1097PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Resnick, J.

The question before this court is the interrelationship between R.C. 124.44,1 which provides the procedure for pro*160motion of police patrolmen, and R.C. 124.37,2 which sets forth the procedure for removals, reappointments and demotions in police and fire departments. Specifically the issue is whether upon a vacancy in a position above the rank of patrolman, must the vacancy be filled pursuant to R.C. 124.44 or may the vacant position be abolished within the sixty-day period?

When a position in a police department has been both established and occupied by appointment, a vacancy in that position…

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Bednar v. City of North CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State ex rel. Bednar v. N. CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Smith v. City of CincinnatiOhio Court of Appeals · 1993
  4. State Ex Rel. Mylott v. McKelveyOhio Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. Waters v. International Harvester Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1993

3 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