Jodka v. Cleveland

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

[Cite as Jodka v. Cleveland, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-861.] JODKA, APPELLANT, v. THE CITY OF CLEVELAND ET AL., APPELLEES. [Cite as Jodka v. Cleveland, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2015-Ohio-861.] Certification of conflict dismissed as improvidently certified. (No. 2014-0480—Submitted July 9, 2014—Decided March 12, 2015.) CERTIFIED BY the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 99951, 2014-Ohio208. ____________________ {¶ 1} The certification of conflict is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently certified. O’CONNOR, C.J., and LANZINGER, KENNEDY, and FRENCH, JJ., concur. PFEIFER and O’NEILL, JJ., dissent. O’DONNELL, J., not participating. ________________________ Mayle, Ray & Mayle, L.L.C., Andrew R. Mayle, Jeremiah S. Ray, and Ronald J. Mayle; and Murray & Murray, Co., L.P.A., and John T. Murray, for appellant. Barbara Langhenry, Director of Law, and Gary Singletary, Assistant Director of Law, for appellee city of Cleveland. Baker & Hostetler, L.L.P., Gregory V. Mersol, and Chris Bator, for appellees Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., Boulder Acquisition Corp., and Xerox Corp. ________________________

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.