Legal Opinion

Wolf v. Cuyahoga Falls City School District Board of Education

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 11, 1990No. 89-944PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAlice Robie Re snick, J.

Appellant asserts that she had a binding oral agreement with appellees regarding a promise to a duty-free period. She basically contends that Rump, as an agent of the school board, entered into an enforceable agreement with her by promising to give her a duty-free period in exchange for her promise to teach journalism classes and be the newspaper advisor. Appellant claims that Rump promised her a duty-free period as long as she remained journalism teacher and newspaper ad-visor, whereas Rump maintains that he only agreed to give her a duty-free period for the 1983-1984 school year.

Regardless…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. CADO Business Systems of Ohio, Inc. v. Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Brownfield v. Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
  3. Walker v. Lockland City School District Board of EducationOhio Court of Appeals · 1980
  4. Ballard v. Goshen Local Bd. of Edn.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1984

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hall v. Lakeview Local School District Board of EducationOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Beachwood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Warrensville Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.Ohio Supreme Court · 2022
  3. Morgenstern v. Nationwide Agribusiness InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  4. Beachwood City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Warrensville Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
  5. Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance v. RoshongCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2002

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