holding that because the General Assembly has the power to define the contours of the state’s liability, within the constraints of equal protection and due process, the right to sue the state is not fundamental
How later courts described this case
- holding that because the General Assembly has the power to define the contours of the state’s liability, within the constraints of equal protection and due process, the right to sue the state is not fundamental
- holding that a police chief’s failure to maintain certain safety devices, which resulted in a police officer’s injury when a prisoner set fire to his mattress, did not constitute wanton conduct
- holding that O.R.C. § 2744 did not violate the due process and equal protection provisions of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, or the right to remedy provision of the Ohio Constitution
- finding that Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution does not endow citizens with the fundamental right to sue political subdivisions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
dissenting. For the reasons stated in my concurrence in Garrett v. Sandusky (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 142 , 624 N.E.2d 704, 707 , it is contrary to Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution to hold that a governmental entity is immune from suit simply by virtue of its status as sovereign.