Piazza v. Cuyahoga Cnty.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
MELODY J. STEWART, J., CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART:
{¶ 29} I agree with the part of the majority opinion finding that we lack jurisdiction to address the county's statute of limitations argument. I disagree, however, with the majority's resolution of Piazza's false light invasion of privacy claim.
{¶ 30} R.C. 2744.09(B) creates an exception to political subdivision immunity for civil actions "by an employee * * * arising out of the employment relationship between the employee and the political subdivision." The plain meaning of the word "employee" is a person hired by, and working…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- City of Wooster v. ArbenzOhio Supreme Court · 1927
- Meeks v. PapadopulosOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
- Coviello v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1935
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.