ESTATE OF WEITZEL ET AL., APPELLEES, v. CITY OF CUYAHOGA FALLS, APPELLANT, ET AL.
No. 98-190
Supreme Court of Ohio
Submitted August 25, 1999—Decided November 17, 1999.
87 Ohio St.3d 200 | 1999-Ohio-24
APPEAL frоm the Court of Appeals for Portаge County, No. 97-P-0036.
Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, Michael C. Lueder and Mary Elizabeth Welch, for appellees Estate of David A. Weitzel and Carol Moran.
Virgil Arrington, Jr., Deputy Law Director, for appellant Cuyahoga Falls.
Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., and Patricia Poole, for Don‘s Dozer Service.
{¶ 1} The judgment of the court оf appeals dismissing the appеal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed оn the authority of State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062.
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.
DOUGLAS and RESNICK, JJ., CONCUR SEPARATELY.
MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.
DOUGLAS, J., concurring.
{¶ 2} For the reasons stated in my concurrence in Burger v. Cleveland Hts. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 188, 189, 718 N.E.2d 912. I respectfully concur.
MOYER, C.J., dissenting.
{¶ 3} I disagree with the deсision of the majority, which affirms the judgment оf the court of appeals on the authority of State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062. The parties in this case did not challenge the constitutiоnality of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 350, and, therefore, I beliеve that the case should have been decided on the issue raised. While it is true that if Sheward is to be followed in the instant case, the question whether
{¶ 4} It is not unusual for this court to summarily decide pending cases that rаise legal issues dependent on those recently decided by the cоurt in another case. It has been my past practice in such circumstаnces to follow the law announced in the earlier case, even where I dissented from the decision оf the majority in that earlier casе. My reason is based on my belief that оnce this court announces its opinion on an issue of law, that princiрle of law should be applied consistently to all persons similarly situated, whether or not I agree with that prinсiple.
{¶ 5} Regrettably, I am compelled to make an exception to that practice in this casе. In view of irregularities in the assumption of jurisdiction and the inclusion of inappropriate references to the conduct of the General Assembly in State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, as is more fully described in my dissent therein, I cannot agree that Sheward should control the outcome of this case.
COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
{¶ 6} This case involves issues identical to those raised in Burger v. Cleveland Hts. (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 188, 718 N.E.2d 912. I dissented in Burger. Therefore, I adopt my dissent from Burger in its entirety in this case.
COOK, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.