# State ex rel. Lee v. Bellefontaine City Board of Education

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 22, 1985 · 17 Ohio St. 3d 124

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758796

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Lee v. Bellefontaine City Board of Education
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 22, 1985
- **Citations:** 17 Ohio St. 3d 124; 17 Ohio B. 271; 477 N.E.2d 1135; 1985 Ohio LEXIS 326
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 8 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/6758796

## Opinion text

Wright, J.,
dissenting. I concur in Justice Holmes’ thorough, well-reasoned dissent. I fully agree that the notice provided the appellant by the superintendent of schools satisfies the requirements of Ohio law. Appellant’s principal timely informed her that the superintendent would recommend her for a one-year probationary contract. The reasons for the probationary status were embodied within a detailed evaluation checklist which was given to the appellant. The majority does not dispute that the principal acted as an agent for the superintendent or that appellant received written notice of her proposed probationary status.
The majority has indeed elevated form over substance. It is beyond cavil that the appellant was fully aware of the reasons for the decision by appellee and was in no way prejudiced by any of the procedures followed by any of the actors in this particular controversy.
Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6758796. Public record. Not legal advice.