Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Piazza v. Cuyahoga Cnty.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 12, 2017No. 104724Published

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

  1. Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  2. City of Wooster v. ArbenzOhio Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Meeks v. PapadopulosOhio Supreme Court · 1980
  4. Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Coviello v. Industrial CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1935

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