# Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc.

> Ohio Court of Appeals · March 5, 2010 · 186 Ohio App. 3d 757

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6699589

## Case

- **Full name:** SUTTON v. TOMCO MACHINING, INC.
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 5, 2010
- **Citations:** 186 Ohio App. 3d 757; 930 N.E.2d 815
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Donovan
- **Judges:** Brogan, Donovan, Froelich
- **Cited by:** 3 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/6699589

## Opinion text

Donovan, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
{¶ 47} I disagree. I do not believe that we are at liberty to overrule the syllabus of a Supreme Court opinion that is on point, i.e., Bickers v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 116 Ohio St.3d 351 , 2007-Ohio-6751 , 879 N.E.2d 201 . As an appellate court, we are bound by S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 1. S.Ct.R.Rep.Op. 1(B)(1) and (2) indicate: “(1) The law stated in a Supreme Court opinion is contained within its syllabus (if one is provided), and its text, including footnotes”; “(2) If there is disharmony between the syllabus of an opinion and its text or footnotes, the syllabus controls.” Nothing in the Bickers syllabus indicates that the rule of law contained therein applies only to nonretaliatory discharges.
{¶ 48} I would agree with the trial court the claim is barred based upon the Bickers holding, which we are not free to modify. I would affirm.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6699589. Public record. Not legal advice.