Legal Opinion
State Ex Rel. Waldman v. Burke
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided November 9, 1949No. 31870PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.
Our only question is whether the conclusion of law announced was warranted by the facts disclosed. From the facts found the Court of Appeals concluded that the relator was not discharged from his position but rather that he removed himself therefrom by conduct which constituted a constructive resignation.
The Court of Appeals specifically found as follows :
“Relator was a regularly appointed smoke inspector in the classified service of the city of Cleveland. On August 1, 1946, he was granted a leave for six months on account of illness. Prior to the expiration of such leave, to…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Ferrante v. HiggistonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1936
- Rieke, Gdn. v. HoganOhio Supreme Court · 1941
- People Ex Rel. City of Rochester v. De WittNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
- People Ex Rel. Wallace v. . DiehlNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
3Cited by8 opinions
- Tom Hammon v. Dhl Airways, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1999
- Grovier v. North Sound BankCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1998
- Anderson v. Bright Horizons Children's Ctrs., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
- Hammon v. DHL Airways, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1997
- University of Washington v. MansonWashington Supreme Court · 1983
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.