DeRolph v. State
| Decision Date | 06 September 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 99-570.,99-570. |
| Citation | 93 Ohio St.3d 309,754 NE 2d 1184 |
| Parties | DEROLPH ET AL., APPELLEES, v. THE STATE OF OHIO ET AL., APPELLANTS. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Nicholas A. Pittner, John F. Birath, Jr., Sue W. Yount, Quintin F. Lindsmith and Susan B. Greenberger, for appellees.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Mary Lynn Readey, Roger F. Carroll and James G. Tassie, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellants.
Walter & Haverfield, P.L.L., James E. Betts and Frederick W. Whatley, for amicus curiae Alliance for Adequate School Funding, in support of appellees.
John P. Concannon, for amicus curiae Cincinnati School District Board of Education, in support of appellees.
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., and Kimball H. Carey, for amici curiae Buckeye Association of School Administrators, Ohio School Boards Association, and Ohio Association of School Business Officials, in support of appellees.
Patrick F. Timmins, Jr., for amicus curiae Coalition of Rural and Appalachian Schools, in support of appellees.
Louis B. Geneva Co., L.P.A., and M. Jayne H. Geneva, for amici curiae Coalition for School Funding Reform, Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District, Lakewood City School District, Shaker Heights City School District, and Community Advocates for Public Education, in support of appellees.
Carson, Sowash & Ferrier and Herman A. Carson, for amicus curiae Federal Hocking Local School District, in support of appellees.
Hugh Calkins, for amicus curiae Initiatives in Urban Education Foundation, in support of appellees.
Courtney M. Wilson, for amicus curiae League of Women Voters of Ohio, in support of appellees.
John T. Ryerson and Susan Truitt, for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Gifted Children, in support of appellees.
Thomas C. Drabick, Jr., for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Public School Employees/AFSCME Local 4, AFL-CIO, in support of appellees.
Christopher Lopez; Kalniz, Iorio & Feldstein Co., L.P.A., Ted Iorio and Christine A. Reardon, for amicus curiae Ohio Education Association, in support of appellees.
Ulmer & Berne, L.L.P., Donald J. Mooney, Jr., and Yelena Boxer; Schnorf & Schnorf Co., L.P.A., and David M. Schnorf, for amicus curiae Ohio Federation of Teachers, in support of appellees.
Ben Espy Co., L.P.A. and Ben E. Espy, for amici curiae members of the Ohio House of Representatives Jack Ford, Dixie J. Allen, John E. Barnes, Jr., Catherine L. Barrett, Joyce Beatty, John Boccieri, Samuel T. Britton, Kenneth A. Carano, Mary M. Cirelli, Wayne E. Coates, Dean E. DePiero, L. George Distel, Steven L. Driehaus, Teresa Fedor, Bryan Flannery, William J. Hartnett, Peter Lawson Jones, Annie L. Key, K. Eileen Krupinski, Anthony Latell, Jr., G. Daniel Metelsky, Dale Miller, Ray Miller, Mary Rose Oakar, William L. Ogg, Robert J. Otterman, Sylvester Patton, Jr., Jeanine Perry, Chris Redfern, Ronald Rhine, Derrick Seaver, Daniel J. Sferra, Shirley A. Smith, Fred Strahorn, Erin Sullivan, Joseph P. Sulzer, Barbara Ann Sykes, Charles A. Wilson, Jr., and Claudette Woodward, and members of the Ohio Senate Leigh E. Herington, Daniel Brady, Gregory L. DiDonato, Ben E. Espy, Eric Fingerhut, Linda J. Furney, Robert F. Hagan, Mark Mallory, Rhine McLin, C.J. Prentiss, Timothy J. Ryan, and Michael C. Shoemaker, in support of appellees.
Ben Espy Co., L.P.A., and Ben E. Espy, for amicus curiae Ohio Legislative Black Caucus, in support of appellees.
Susan G. Tobin, for amicus curiae Ohio Legal Rights Service, in support of appellees.
John M. Haseley, for amicus curiae United States Congressman Ted Strickland, in support of appellees.
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff and N. Victor Goodman, for amici curiae Richard H. Finan, President of the Ohio Senate, and Larry Householder, Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, in support of appellants.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Jeffrey S. Sutton, Chad A. Readier and Mary Beth Young, for amicus curiae Ohio Board of Regents, in support of appellants.
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, L.L.P., Robert W. Trafford, James D. Curphey, Jennifer T. Mills and Constance M. Greaney, for amici curiae Ohio Business Roundtable, Ohio Manufacturers' Association, National Federation of Independent Business/Ohio, Ohio Council of Retail Merchants, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, and Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, in support of appellants.
John S. Jones, for amicus curiae Ohio Coalition for the Education of Children With Disabilities, in support of appellants.
Chester, Willcox & Saxbe and John J. Chester, for amicus curiae Ohio Governor Bob Taft, in support of appellants.
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Robert C. Maier, Assistant Attorney General, for amicus curiae Tax Commissioner of Ohio, in support of appellants.
Since it was first docketed in this court in 1995, this dispute has produced from this court no fewer than three signed majority opinions, a per curiam opinion, eleven separate concurrences and dissents, and a number of rulings on motions filed by plaintiffs and defendants. Every justice of the court has expressed her and his views regarding the constitutional issue that once again is presented for our disposition nearly six years after the court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to review the merits. The written opinions of the justices reflect deeply held beliefs regarding the responsibility of the court as an institution and the principles that define the framework by which each justice decides issues brought to the court. The informal and formal discussions among the justices regarding the jurisdictional and merit issues have been of an intensity and duration unmatched by any other case.
The range of the opinions that reflect the decisional process is broad. For instance, some of us believe that the court exceeded its proper role in addressing the merits of this case, DeRolph v. State (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 193, 264-283, 677 N.E.2d 733, 782-795("DeRolph I") (Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissenting), and thereafter in continuing jurisdiction of this matter, DeRolph v. State (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 419, 423-424, 678 N.E.2d 886, 889-890 (Lundberg Stratton, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). One of us has characterized the "bedrock constitutional challenge" presented by this case as being quite simply the "horrible funding inequities that persist between school districts in Ohio due to the state's heavy reliance on local property taxes in formulating the school foundation formula." DeRolph v. State (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1, 46, 728 N.E.2d 993, 1028("DeRolph II") (Pfeifer, J., concurring). One of us has expressed the belief that the court should expressly declare education to be a fundamental right afforded to each Ohio child pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution. DeRolph I, 78 Ohio St.3d at 255-257,677 N.E.2d at 776-777 (Douglas, J., concurring).
Despite our differences, however, we all agree upon the fundamental importance of education to the children and citizens of this state. Educated, informed citizens sustain the vitality of our democratic institutions. We differ little in support of the desired ends so trenchantly recited by Justice Sweeney when he observed that our forefathers, in drafting our state Constitution, "carried within them a deep-seated belief that liberty and individual opportunity could be preserved only by educating Ohio's citizens," DeRolph I, 78 Ohio St.3d at 197, 677 N.E.2d at 736, and by Justice Resnick when she so incisively counseled that the goal of funding primary and secondary public education should be to assure "a quality education for every single child in Ohio regardless of where that child resides" so that every child may "enter a structurally safe building, which is staffed with sufficient teachers, and contains enough textbooks and equipment so that the child can develop self-esteem and intellectual abilities," DeRolph I, 78 Ohio St.3d at 260 and 261, 677 N.E.2d at 779 and 780 (Resnick, J., concurring). We agree regarding the goals of public education; we have vigorously disagreed with respect to whether the legislature or the judiciary has the ultimate authority to determine if the goals have been achieved.
The current plan for funding public primary and secondary education adopted by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor1 is probably not the plan that any one of us would have created were it our responsibility to do so. But that is not our burden, and it is not the test we apply in this decision. None of us is completely comfortable with the decision we announce in this opinion. But we have responded to a duty that is intrinsic to our position as justices on the highest court of the state. Drawing upon our own instincts and the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, we have reached the point where, while continuing to hold our previously expressed opinions, the greater good requires us to recognize "the necessity of sacrificing our opinions sometimes to the opinions of others for the sake of harmony." 16 Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Boyd Ed.1961) 598 (letter to Francis Eppes, July 4, 1790).
A climate of legal, financial, and political uncertainty concerning Ohio's school-funding system has prevailed at least since this court accepted jurisdiction of the case. We have concluded that no one is served by continued uncertainty and fractious debate. In that spirit, we have created the consensus that should terminate the role of this court in the dispute.
Pursuant to the doctrine of the law of the case, the "decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels." Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 11 OBR 1, 2-3, 462 N.E.2d 410, 412.
On March 24, 1997 a majority of this court held, as syllabus...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gannon v. State, 113,267.
...school system but again stayed injunction to give legislature additional time to remedy violations); DeRolph v. State, 93 Ohio St.3d 309, 754 N.E.2d 1184 (2001) (DeRolph III ) (after court found school finance law unconstitutional, General Assembly enacted legislation, which court again fou......
-
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
...undergoing a major overhaul of its public school financing pursuant to an order of the Ohio Supreme Court in DeRolph v. State, 93 Ohio St. 3d 309, 754 N. E. 2d 1184 (2001). The Court ought, at least, to allow that reform effort and the district's experimentation with alternative public scho......
-
State v. Hartman
...Bevan Walsh, Summit County Prosecuting Attorney, Paul M. Maric and Philip D. Bogdanoff, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee. [93 Ohio St.3d 309] Irving B. Sugerman and Nathan A. Ray, for LUNDBERG STRATTON, J. In this appeal, defendant-appellant, Brett X. Hartman, raises thirteen p......
-
Wolf v. E. Liverpool School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 2004 Ohio 2479 (OH 5/12/2004)
...the court for review and final determination, we as judges are not at liberty to ignore our obligations." DeRolph v. State (2001),93 Ohio St.3d 309, 328 (Douglas, J., concurring). Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court's conclusion that the Board violated R.C. 121.22(F) by failing to g......