# Snyder v. Johnstown-Monroe Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 11, 1994 · 69 Ohio St. 3d 277

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11148991

## Case

- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 11, 1994
- **Citations:** 69 Ohio St. 3d 277; 1994 Ohio 20
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11148991

## Opinion text

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 69 Ohio St.3d 277.]

SNYDER, APPELLEE, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE JOHNSTOWN-MONROE
LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, APPELLANT.
[Cite as Snyder v. Johnstown-Monroe Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn.,
1994-Ohio-20.]
Schools—Teachers—Nonrenewal of limited teaching contract—Procedural
provisions of R.C. Chapter 2506 provide procedure that must be followed
in an appeal pursuant to R.C. 3319.11.
(No. 93-1218—April 6, 1994—Decided May 11, 1994.)
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Licking County, No. 92-CA-92.
__________________
Martin, Pergram, Browning & Parker Co., L.P.A., and Dennis L. Pergram,
for appellee.
Robert L. Becker, Licking County Prosecuting Attorney, and David Q.
Wigginton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.
__________________
{¶ 1} The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on authority of Kiel
v. Green Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 149, 630 N.E.2d 716,
paragraph one of the syllabus, and also for the reasons stated in the opinion of the
court of appeals.
{¶ 2} This cause is remanded to the trial court to apply the law as set forth
in Kiel.
A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ.,
concur.
MOYER, C.J., and WRIGHT, J. concurs in part and dissent in part.
__________________
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

WRIGHT, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 3} I concur in the result obtained in this cause. I continue to disagree
with the reasoning stated in Kiel v. Green Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994),
69 Ohio St.3d 149, 630 N.E.2d 716, for the reasons stated in my dissent therein.
MOYER, C.J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.
__________________

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11148991. Public record. Not legal advice.