Legal Opinion
Cincinnati City School District Board of Education v. State Board of Education
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided July 30, 2009No. 2008-1480PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLundberg Stratton, J.
{¶ 1} Appellants, the State Board of Education of Ohio and the Ohio Department of Education, advance the following proposition of law: “A school district with more than 500 employees is an ‘organization’ barred from recovering attorney fees by R.C. 2335.39(A)(2)(d).”
{¶ 2} For the reasons that follow, we hold that a school district board of education is subsumed within the meaning of “organization” in R.C. 2335.39(A)(2)(d). Because the Cincinnati City School District Board of Education, appellee, is an organization with more than 500 employees, it is not an eligible party for purposes of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- In re Adoption of HolcombOhio Supreme Court · 1985
- Stanley Spencer v. National Labor Relations BoardCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1983
- Hughes v. Ohio Department of CommerceOhio Supreme Court · 2007
- AEGIS v. SedlackoOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- Akron Home Medical Services, Inc. v. LindleyOhio Supreme Court · 1986
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Gabbard v. Madison Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2021
- State v. Pendergrass (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
- Toledo City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2014
- Jodka v. ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
- BND Rentals, Inc. v. Dayton Power & Light Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.