Legal Opinion

Cater v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 1998No. Nos. 97-1261 and 97-1488PublishedCited by 175 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J.

The certified issue is “whether a governmental function and the absolute immunity provided it under R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(u) [are] still subject to the exceptions to immunity provided in R.C. 2744.02(B)(3) and (4).” *28We find that the operation of an indoor municipal swimming pool, although defined as a governmental function under R.C. 2744.01(C)(2)(u), is still subject to the exception to immunity found in former R.C. 2744.02(B)(3), but not to the exception contained in former R.C. 2744.02(B)(4).

We also find that a directed verdict was improper in this case, since…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Strother v. HutchinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  2. Fabrey v. McDonald Village Police DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Hawkins v. IvyOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  5. Marchetti v. KalishOhio Supreme Court · 1990

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by175 opinions

  1. Greene County Agricultural Society v. LimingOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Colbert v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Cater v. ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Hortman v. City of MiamisburgOhio Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Cramer v. Auglaize AcresOhio Supreme Court · 2007

170 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