Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Hamilton County Board of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided October 25, 1989No. 88-1169Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDouglas, J.

As indicated by the majority, there are four major issues for us to resolve in this case. I write separately because our determination of these issues could very well have an effect on administrative law and labor relations in our state for an extended period of time.

I

In proposition of law number four, appellee, “MRDD,” argues that the State Employment Relations Board, “SERB,” is not a proper party to common pleas court proceedings brought pursuant to R.C. 119.12. The court of appeals agreed with MRDD on the basis that SERB is not a “person” or “party” within the meaning of R.C. 119.01 and,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Stewart v. Midwestern Indemnity Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1989
  3. South Community, Inc. v. State Employment Relations BoardOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. State ex rel. Osborn v. JacksonOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Blue Cross of Northeast Ohio v. RatchfordOhio Supreme Court · 1980

5 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