Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority

{¶ 47} As the writer of Ventura v. Independence (May 7, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 72526, 1998 WL 230429, I find myself constrained respectfully to dissent from the majority opinion’s analysis and decision with respect to the first assignment of error.

{¶ 48} Contrary to the majority opinion’s characterization, Ventura did not indicate that “its holding was limited to the facts of that case.” The Ventura decision stated:

{¶ 49} “As he did in the trial court, appellant argues his claims for intentional tort and intentional infliction of emotional distress arise out of his employment relationship…