# State, Ex Rel. Lemperle v. McIntosh

> Ohio Court of Appeals · July 3, 1944 · 75 Ohio App. 164

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3689181

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE, Ex Rel LEMPERLE, Relator v. McINTOSH Et, Respondents
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** July 3, 1944
- **Citations:** 75 Ohio App. 164; 42 Ohio Law. Abs. 257; 30 Ohio Op. 491; 60 N.E.2d 486; 1944 Ohio App. LEXIS 409
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ross
- **Judges:** Matthews, Hildebrant, Ross
- **Cited by:** 2 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/3689181

## Opinion text

ROSS, P. J.,
dissenting.
I dissent from the opinion, for the reason that while §4628-
*265
1, GC, does not directly apply to the pension being paid,'the relator for the reason that such pension was granted before the effective date of the statute, the existence of this statute at the time of the change in the rules presents a situation resulting in unreasonable discrimination.
The effect of the statute and the amended rule is, to freeze beyond control of the trustees a pension granted after the effective date of the statute, (State, ex rel. Cline v Miller, et al., etc., 134 Oh St 445, 448) and permit unlimited control over one granted before the statute became effective. Two pensioners, otherwise entirely equal in qualifications and right, would be placed in entirely different categories.
I dissent for the further reason that the amendment to the rule applies only to earned income and not to all income, whether earned or received in another manner. I think the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas should be affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3689181. Public record. Not legal advice.