Opinion

Huber v. Celebrezze

  • 14 Ohio App. 3d 299
  • 14 Ohio B. 356
  • 471 N.E.2d 181
  • 1984 Ohio App. LEXIS 11575
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Apr 26, 1984
Status
Published
Author
Whiteside
On the bench
Reilly, Whiteside, Moyer
Cited by
9 cases

The opinion

Whiteside, J.,

concurring. The underlying gravamen of our opinion herein is that an attorney employed by the Attorney General to perform services only an attorney can perform is an assistant attorney general as a matter of law in accordance with R.C. 109.03 and, thus, is in the unclassified civil service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(11). No error or misnomer made by the Director of Administrative Services (or the Attorney General) in assigning an assistant attorney general to a pay classification of “attorney,” rather than “assistant attorney general,” can operate to change his status from unclassified to classified or his position from that of assistant attorney general to some other type of attorney position which can be performed only by an attorney employed by the Attorney General.

Accordingly, I concur in the opinion and judgment.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.