Stromberg v. Board of Ed. of Bratenahl
| Decision Date | 17 December 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 80-126,80-126 |
| Citation | 18 O.O.3d 343,413 N.E.2d 1184,64 Ohio St.2d 98 |
| Parties | , 18 O.O.3d 343 STROMBERG, Appellant, v. BD. OF EDN. OF BRATENAHL; Bd. of Edn. of Cleveland et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
James A. Chiara and Terence E. Scanlon, Cleveland, for appellant.
Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, John M. Baker, Lawrence N. Gang and Mary A. Lentz, Cleveland, for appellee Cleveland Board of Education.
Alexander, Ebinger, Holschuh, Fisher & McAlister, John D. Holschuh, Adele E. O'Conner, Columbus, William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Gary E. Brown, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee State Board of Education.
While one may admire the persistence of the citizens and taxpayers of the village of Bratenahl to reestablish a local school district, it has been determined that the local district failed to meet the standards established by the General Assembly in R.C. 3311.29 and repeatedly stated that the Bratenahl Local School District was regularly dissolved.
The determinative issue before this court is whether the judgment that the Bratenahl Local School District has been dissolved is res judicata as to the appellant as a taxpayer. *
This court has uniformly adhered to the doctrine of res judicata to prevent repeated attacks upon a final judgment. The doctrine applies not only to what was determined but also to every question which might properly have been litigated. State ex rel. Ohio Water Service Co. v. Mahoning Valley Sanitary Dist. (1959), 169 Ohio St. 31, 157 N.E.2d 116, paragraph one of the syllabus; Quinn v. State ex rel. Leroy (1928), 118 Ohio St. 48, 160 N.E. 453, paragraph one of the syllabus; Burton, Inc. v. Durkee (1954), 162 Ohio St. 433, 123 N.E.2d 432, paragraph two of the syllabus; Pollock v. Cohen (1877), 32 Ohio St. 514, paragraph four of the syllabus. The constitutional issues involved in the case at bar could have been litigated in the boards initial action.
Appellant essentially argues that as a taxpayer he has a private right, independent of the Bratenahl board of education to relitigate the same public issue determined against the board. This may be true where causes of action are not the same or where the taxpayer has a different private right not shared in common with the public; however, a judgment for or against a governmental body is binding and conclusive as res judicata on all residents, citizens and taxpayers with respect to matters adjudicated which are of general and public interest. Cincinnati ex rel. Crotty v. Cincinnati (197...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
...judgment action alleging such law to be unconstitutional." Ibid., 431 N.E.2d, at 673. See also Stromberg v. Board of Ed. of Bratenahl, 64 Ohio St.2d 98, 413 N.E.2d 1184 (1980). In reading the opinion of the District Court in the present litigation, we are unable to determine whether that co......
-
Nolles v. State Com. Reorganization School Dist., 06-4093.
...allege that they `ha[d] a different private right not shared in common with the public'") (quoting Stromberg v. Bd. of Educ. of Bratenahl, 64 Ohio St.2d 98, 413 N.E.2d 1184, 1186 (Ohio 1980), which found a taxpayer's challenge to the dissolution of a school district to be public in nature a......
-
Matter of Wintrow
...Island, Inc. v. Board of Township Trustees, 69 Ohio St.2d 241, 431 N.E.2d 672, 674-75 (1982), Stromberg v. Board of Education of Bratenahl, 64 Ohio St.2d 98, 413 N.E.2d 1184, 1186 (1980); Norwood v. McDonald, 142 Ohio St. 299, 52 N.E.2d 67, 71 The most recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Co......
-
Crago v. Kinzie
...attempting to reopen the cause as to issues which were or could have been presented." In Stromberg v. Bratenahl Bd. of Edn. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 98, 100, 18 O.O.3d 343, 344, 413 N.E.2d 1184, 1186, the Ohio Supreme Court, citing a multitude of its century-old decisions, proclaimed, "This co......