Shimola v. Cleveland
| Decision Date | 22 December 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1718,92-1718 |
| Citation | 68 Ohio St.3d 1201,623 N.E.2d 84 |
| Parties | SHIMOLA, Appellee, v. CITY OF CLEVELAND, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, Nos. 60923 and 61187.
Fadel & Beyer, William D. Beyer and Steven D. Jones, Cleveland, for appellee.
Danny R. Williams, Director of Law, and Paul A. Janis, Asst. Director of Law, Cleveland, for appellant.
The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed.
MELVIN L. RESNICK, J., of the Sixth Appellate District, sitting for FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., J.
I respectfully dissent from the conclusion of the majority that this case was improvidently allowed. Entirely aside from any ultimate decision on the merits of the case, I believe the case presents a question of great public interest as to the possible retroactive effect of R.C. 2744.05(B) regarding the impairment of a remedy instead of a substantive right. This court may not be required to overrule Vogel v. Wells (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 91, 566 N.E.2d 154, but could instead determine the constitutional question regarding the possible retroactive effect of R.C. 2744.05(B) should we find that only a remedy was affected. Thus, we could distinguish the Vogel decision. The majority's decision that the case was improvidently allowed, however, raises an implication that application of the statute in this case affects a substantive right without consideration of the argument that application of the statute may have affected only a remedy.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jerry Leffingwell v. Wal-Mart Stores
... ... discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent ... an abuse of discretion. Shimola v. Cleveland (1992), ... 89 Ohio App.3d 505, 511, appeal dismissed (1993), 68 Ohio ... St.3d 1201, citing State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio ... ...
-
State ex rel. Shimola v. Cleveland
...the record, but on December 22, 1993, dismissed the city's appeal as having been improvidently allowed. (See Shimola v. Cleveland [1993], 68 Ohio St.3d 1201, 623 N.E.2d 84.) Despite several requests for payment by Shimola following this court's dismissal of the city's appeal, the city has f......