# Pitts v. Ohio Department of Transportation

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 29, 1981 · 67 Ohio St. 2d 378

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757346

## Case

- **Full name:** Pitts v. Ohio Department of Transportation
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 29, 1981
- **Citations:** 67 Ohio St. 2d 378; 21 Ohio Op. 3d 238; 423 N.E.2d 1105; 1981 Ohio LEXIS 593
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Holmes
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Mahoney, Ninth, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 610 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/6757346

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “Civ.R.60(B), not a motion for reconsideration, is the proper way to bring to the trial court’s attention its errors following a final judgment entry”
- noting that a motion for reconsideration after a final order in the trial court is a nullity and all judgments or final orders flowing from a motion for reconsideration are also a nullity
- stating that reconsideration of a final order is a nullity
- discussing applicability of motions for reconsideration in the trial court despite the lack of a civil rule governing the practice

## Opinion text

Holmes, J.,
dissenting. I dissent in that it is my view that it was not the intent of the General Assembly to grant an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of an employee’s job abolishment. It is true that such a review may, by virtue of R. C. 124.03, be had in the State Personnel Board of Review, but such section does not provide an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas on the issue of the abolishment of a position.
Even though this court held in State, ex rel. Kendrick, v. Masheter (1964), 176 Ohio St. 232 , and State, ex rel. Osborn, v. Jackson (1976), 46 Ohio St. 2d 41 , that a right of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas is provided an employee under R. C. 119.12 in a decision involving a layoff, this is not a reasonable basis for extending such appeal to a job abolishment. Such a determination concerning the basis of the abolishment of a job is quite separate and apart from the consideration of a case involving a layoff, which is reasonably within the legislatively intended realm of the removal or reduction in pay of an employee for disciplinary reasons.
I would reverse the Court of Appeals, and hold that the trial court was correct in its determination that it had no jurisdiction of this appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757346. Public record. Not legal advice.