Croce v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees
2021 Ohio 2242
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Croce was appointed Chair of OSU's Dept. of Molecular Virology, Immunology, and Medical Genetics in 2004 (four-year term) and served continuously thereafter; parties dispute whether he was formally reappointed in 2012 and 2016.
- In November 2018 OSU informed Croce he would no longer serve as Department Chair effective January 1, 2019; Croce refused to resign and filed suit December 31, 2018 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Ohio Adm.Code 3335-3-35(B) (procedures for removal of a chair).
- OSU moved for summary judgment arguing Croce was not serving a board-appointed four-year term in 2016 and therefore could be removed at will; the trial court granted summary judgment for OSU on December 16, 2019.
- Croce appealed; after the 2016–2020 term expired (Oct. 1, 2020), OSU moved to dismiss the appeal as moot. Croce sought leave to file a sur-reply with new materials; the appellate court denied that motion as outside the trial record.
- The appellate court concluded Croce’s requested relief (injunction to prevent removal during the 2016–2020 term) was no longer live and dismissed the appeal as moot.
- The court rejected both mootness exceptions—"capable of repetition yet evading review" and "matter of public or great general interest"—as inapplicable here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of the appeal | Croce: exceptions apply; relief still merits judicial consideration | OSU: the 2016 term expired Oct. 1, 2020, so injunctive/declaratory relief is impossible | Appeal dismissed as moot; exceptions not satisfied |
| Whether removal required Ohio Adm.Code 3335-3-35(B) procedures (i.e., whether Croce held a board-appointed four-year term in 2016) | Croce: he was reappointed and thus protected by the code’s removal procedures | OSU: Croce was not formally reappointed in 2016 and served at-will, so code procedures did not apply | Appellate court did not reach the merits; because the appeal was moot it declined to review the trial court’s summary-judgment ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- James A. Keller v. Flaherty, 74 Ohio App.3d 788 (discusses the "capable of repetition yet evading review" standard requiring reasonable expectation of recurrence)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (party entitled to dismissal when no live controversy remains)
- In re Appeal of Suspension of Huffer from Circleville High School, 47 Ohio St.3d 12 (applies both mootness exceptions in student-suspension context)
- State ex rel. Calvary v. Upper Arlington, 89 Ohio St.3d 229 (articulates the two-factor test for the repetition/evading-review exception)
- Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1 (U.S. Supreme Court discussion of mootness and exceptions)
- Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478 (standard for "reasonable expectation" of repetition required to avoid mootness)
- Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147 (mootness jurisprudence on repeating controversies)