Yates v. Mansfield Bd. of Edn.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Yates v. Mansfield Bd. of Edn., 99 Ohio St.3d 48, 2003-Ohio-2461.] YATES ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MANSFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE. [Cite as Yates v. Mansfield Bd. of Edn., 99 Ohio St.3d 48, 2003-Ohio-2461.] Discretionary appeal allowed Briefing to proceed to Proposition of Law No. I Proposition of Law No. II allowed and cause reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with Hubbard v. Canton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. Political subdivision tort liability. (No. 2002-2242 Submitted March 25, 2003 Decided May 16, 2003.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Richland County, No. 02 CA 27, 2002Ohio-6311. __________________ {¶1} The discretionary appeal on Proposition of Law No. I is allowed. Briefing is to proceed on Proposition of Law No. I. {¶2} The cause is allowed on Proposition of Law No. II. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings on Proposition of Law No. II consistent with Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 97 Ohio St.3d 451, 2002-Ohio-6718, 780 N.E.2d 543. MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON and O CONNOR, JJ., concur. COOK, J., dissents. __________________ Robert J. Vecchio Co., L.P.A., and Robert J. Vecchio, for appellants. Lutz & Oxley Co., L.P.A., Fred M. Oxley and Erin N. Cahill, for appellee. __________________
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
