# Hamilton County Board of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio

> Ohio Supreme Court · October 25, 1989 · 46 Ohio St. 3d 147

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6762057

## Case

- **Full name:** Hamilton County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio, Ohio Federation of Teachers
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 25, 1989
- **Citations:** 46 Ohio St. 3d 147; 545 N.E.2d 1260; 132 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2897; 1989 Ohio LEXIS 270
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Nick, Res, Resnick, Sweeney, Syllabus, Wright
- **Cited by:** 141 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/6762057

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[f]or an order to determine the action and prevent a judgment for the party appealing, it must dispose of the whole merits of the cause or some separate and distinct branch thereof and leave nothing for the determination of the court"
- finding that R.C. 1331.01(A)’s definition of “person” is inapplicable to a determination of whether a county board of mental retardation and developmental disabilities is a “person” under R.C. 119.01(F)
- holding that orders by the State Employment Relations Board must comply with R.C. 2505.02 to be appealable under R.C. 119.12.

## Opinion text

H. Brown, J.,
concurring. I concur in the judgment, the syllabus law and the analysis of legal issues contained in Parts I, II, and IV of the majority opinion. I further agree with the ultimate conclusion reached by the majority in Part III of the opinion. However, I believe that the want of a final appealable order results from the lack of an adjudication (see the dissent by Justice Douglas in South Community, Inc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. [1988], 38 Ohio St. 3d 224, 229 , 527 N.E. 2d 864, 868 ), as well as from the lack of compliance with R.C. 2505.02 as specified in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6762057. Public record. Not legal advice.