State v. Kerr, Dir. of Law.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
LEVINE, PJ.
It is claimed in support of the prayer for mandamus that the charter of the City of Cleveland affords them protection against summary dismissal; that a summary dismissal is in violation of the provisions of the charter and is, therefore, null and void and of no effect.
The gist of the argument of counsel for the relators as to the legal point involved and applicable, may be stated as follows: It is contended by counsel for the relators that these assistant law directors must, under the provisions of the charter, be regarded as in the classified service. The following is quoted from…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People ex rel. Crane v. TaylorNew York Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by11 opinions
- Susan Fisler Silberstein v. City of DaytonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2006
- State ex rel. Bardo v. City of LyndhurstOhio Supreme Court · 1988
- State ex rel. Minor v. EschenOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- State ex rel. Bednar v. City of North CantonOhio Supreme Court · 1994
- State ex rel. Regetz v. Cleveland Civil Service CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1995
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.