Legal Opinion

Strohofer v. City of Cincinnati

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 3, 1983No. Nos. 82-674 and 82-1504PublishedCited by 36 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJ. P. Celebrezze, J.

In each of these cases we are asked to determine whether appellant’s claims against the respective municipalities for damages arising from the allegedly tortious design and placement of traffic control devices, are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

In view of our recent decision in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St. 3d 26, we hold that they are not. Therein we abrogated the doctrine of sovereign immunity and held at paragraph two of the syllabus that “[t]he defense of sovereign immunity is not available, in the absence of a statute providing immunity, to a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982

3Cited by36 opinions

  1. Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of CommerceOhio Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Menefee v. Queen City MetroOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  3. Sawicki v. Village of Ottawa HillsOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Fahnbulleh v. StrahanOhio Supreme Court · 1995
  5. Winwood v. City of DaytonOhio Supreme Court · 1988

31 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