# State ex rel. Dennis v. Board of Education of Hillsdale Local School District

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 26, 1986 · 28 Ohio St. 3d 263

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759633

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Dennis v. Board of Education of the Hillsdale Local School District
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 26, 1986
- **Citations:** 28 Ohio St. 3d 263; 28 Ohio B. 341; 503 N.E.2d 748; 1986 Ohio LEXIS 832
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Douglas
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Only, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 6 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/6759633

## Opinion text

Douglas, J.,
concurring. I concur and write separately to make several points. There has been much discussion but little decision concerning the phrase “substitutes on a casual or day-to-day basis.” After considering this question and particularly the facts of this case, I would hold (and I think this court should hold) that a teacher employed as a substitute with an assignment to one, and only one, specific teaching position for more than sixty days is not, under any reasonable interpretation, a casual or day-to-day substitute. Further, when R.C. 3319.10 and 3319.11 are read together and harmonized, only “substitutes on a casual or day-to-day basis” are exempt from the requirement of giving notice of nonrenewal and the automatic re-employment provisions of R.C. 3319.11.
*268 Finally, it is my judgment that a teacher employed as a substitute, who teaches more than one hundred twenty days in a situation that entails one specific teaching assignment, is automatically re-employed under the provisions of R.C. 3319.11. My reading of the statutes leads me to the further conclusion that such a teacher should be re-employed under a limited contract as a regular teacher. Thus, I concur only in the judgment of the majority because I differ on this point.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759633. Public record. Not legal advice.