# George v. City of Mansfield

> Ohio Court of Appeals · August 23, 1990 · 6 Ohio App. Unrep. 125

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6710421

## Case

- **Full name:** George v. City of Mansfield
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** August 23, 1990
- **Citations:** 6 Ohio App. Unrep. 125
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Putman
- **Judges:** Milligan, Putman, Smart
- **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/6710421

## Opinion text

PUTMAN, P.J.,
concurs and writes separately.
I agree completely with Judge Milligan's excellent analysis and write only to add that this case actually deals with a claim of genuine equitable estoppel and not the type of "promissory estoppel" that followed Ricketts v. Scothorn (1898), 59 Neb. 51 , 77 N.W. 365 .
Secondly, Ruozzo v. Giles (1982), 6 Ohio App.3d 8 , deals with existing rights and hence is distinguishable We do not have before us the question of whether bad legal advice from a government retirement official as to existing rights can enhance the rights of a member of the fund.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6710421. Public record. Not legal advice.