Legal Opinion · Dissent

DeRolph v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 11, 2000No. 99-570Published

1DissentCook, J.

I view the majority opinions in DeRolph I and now DeRolph II as proceeding from a faulty premise — that Ohio’s Thorough and Efficient Clause provides the basis for this court to continually veto and/or revise the policy decisions of our coequal branch, the General Assembly.

Professor David Mayer of Capital University advances the argument that the premise is faulty by analogizing Ohio’s Thorough and Efficient Clause to the clause in the United States Constitution that empowers Congress to “provide for the common Defence.” David N. Mayer, DeRolph School Funding Ruling Goes Against Bedrock…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. WilliamsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Palmer v. Board of EducationNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
  3. Denison University v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Ursuline Academy v. Board of Tax AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1943
  5. DeRolph v. StateOhio Supreme Court · 1998

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API