05.01.2015 Views

The Supreme Court of Ohio annual report - Supreme Court - State of ...

The Supreme Court of Ohio annual report - Supreme Court - State of ...

The Supreme Court of Ohio annual report - Supreme Court - State of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

public construction contract is legal, valid<br />

and enforceable.<br />

Franklin App. No. 03AP-1194, 2005-<strong>Ohio</strong>-<br />

3810. Judgment affirmed.<br />

Moyer, C.J., Moore, Lundberg Stratton,<br />

O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ., concur.<br />

O’Connor, J., concurs in judgment only.<br />

Pfeifer, J., dissents.<br />

Carla D. Moore, J., <strong>of</strong> the 9 th Appellate<br />

District, was assigned to sit for Resnick,<br />

J., whose term ended on Jan. 1, 2007.<br />

Penrod v. <strong>Ohio</strong> Dept. <strong>of</strong> Admin. Servs.*<br />

Case nos. 2005-2373 and 2005-2374<br />

Web cite 2007-<strong>Ohio</strong>-1688<br />

Holds that abolishment <strong>of</strong> a state employee’s<br />

position was not accomplished consistent<br />

with the requirements <strong>of</strong> former R.C.<br />

124.321(D).<br />

Franklin App. No. 04AP-1118, 2005-<strong>Ohio</strong>-<br />

5836 and 2005-<strong>Ohio</strong>-6611. Judgment<br />

affirmed.<br />

Shaw, Pfeifer, O’Connor and Lanzinger,<br />

JJ., concur.<br />

Moyer, C.J., Lundberg Stratton and<br />

O’Donnell, JJ., dissent.<br />

Stephen R. Shaw, J., <strong>of</strong> the 3 rd Appellate<br />

District, was assigned to sit for Resnick,<br />

J., whose term ended on Jan. 1, 2007.<br />

MAY<br />

<strong>State</strong> v. Sterling*<br />

Case no. 2005-2388<br />

Web cite 2007-<strong>Ohio</strong>-1790<br />

(1). Because R.C. 2953.85(D) provides that<br />

a prosecuting attorney’s decision to disagree<br />

with an inmate’s request for DNA testing is<br />

final and not appealable by any person to<br />

any court and further directs that no court<br />

shall have authority, without agreement<br />

<strong>of</strong> the prosecutor, to order DNA testing,<br />

it interferes with the exercise <strong>of</strong> judicial<br />

authority, violates the doctrine <strong>of</strong> separation<br />

<strong>of</strong> powers, and is unconstitutional. (2). R.C.<br />

2953.82(D) is capable <strong>of</strong> being severed from<br />

the rest <strong>of</strong> the statute.<br />

Ashtabula App. No. 2003-A-0135, 2005-<br />

<strong>Ohio</strong>-6081. Judgment affirmed and cause<br />

remanded for further proceedings.<br />

Moyer, C.J., Gallagher, Pfeifer, Lundberg<br />

Stratton, O’Donnell and Lanzinger, JJ.,<br />

concur.<br />

O’Connor, J., not participating.<br />

Sean C. Gallagher, J., <strong>of</strong> the 8 th Appellate<br />

District, was assigned to sit for Resnick,<br />

J., whose term ended on Jan. 1, 2007.<br />

Cramer v. Auglaize Acres*<br />

Case no. 2005-1629<br />

Web cite 2007-<strong>Ohio</strong>-1946<br />

Former R.C. 3721.17(I)(1) specifically<br />

abrogates governmental immunity and<br />

grants a cause <strong>of</strong> action to residents <strong>of</strong><br />

unlicensed county nursing homes against<br />

a political subdivision for violations <strong>of</strong> R.C.<br />

3721.10 through 3721.17, the <strong>Ohio</strong> Nursing<br />

Home Patients’ Bill <strong>of</strong> Rights.<br />

Auglaize App. No. 2-04-39, 2005-<strong>Ohio</strong>-3609.<br />

Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in<br />

part.<br />

Moyer, C.J., Moore, Pfeifer, Lundberg<br />

Stratton, O’Connor, O’Donnell and<br />

Lanzinger, JJ., concur.<br />

Carla D. Moore, J., <strong>of</strong> the 9 th Appellate<br />

District, was assigned to sit for Resnick,<br />

J., whose term ended on Jan. 1, 2007.<br />

Summit Cty. Children Servs. Bd.<br />

v. Communication Workers <strong>of</strong> Am., Local 4546<br />

Case no. 2006-0567<br />

Web cite 2007-<strong>Ohio</strong>-1949<br />

Holds that an arbitrator may use a test for<br />

good cause that considers an employee’s<br />

record <strong>of</strong> service and other mitigating<br />

circumstances in the absence <strong>of</strong> a definition<br />

<strong>of</strong> “good cause” in a collective-bargaining<br />

agreement.<br />

Summit App. No. 22697, 2006-<strong>Ohio</strong>-389.<br />

Judgment reversed.<br />

Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton,<br />

O’Connor, O’Donnell, Lanzinger and<br />

Cupp, JJ., concur.<br />

94

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!