# State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City School District Board of Education

> Ohio Supreme Court · September 28, 1994 · 70 Ohio St. 3d 416

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6770308

## Case

- **Full name:** The State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City School District Board of Education
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 28, 1994
- **Citations:** 70 Ohio St. 3d 416
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Douglas
- **Judges:** Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Yellow flag:** Declined to follow by Gilbert v. County of Summit, Unpublished Decision (11-12-2003), 2003 Ohio 6012 (2003).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6770308

## Opinion text

Douglas, J.,
dissenting. I respectfully dissent. In deciding as the majority does in today’s opinion (and as we did in State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. [1994], 69 Ohio St.3d 217 , 631 N.E.2d 150 ), we render meaningless the following language of R.C. 3319.02(D):
“(1) Each assistant superintendent, principal, assistant principal, and other administrator shall be evaluated annually through a written evaluation process.
“(2) The evaluation shall be conducted by the superintendent or his designee.
“(3) In order to provide time to show progress in correcting the deficiencies identified in the evaluation process the completed evaluation shall be received by the evaluatee at least sixty days prior to any action by the board of education on the employee’s contract of employment.” (Emphasis added.)
The clear language found in R.C. 3319.02(D)(3) makes evaluation a condition precedent to any action by a board of education on an affected employee’s contract. Today’s decision does not give efficacy to the language of the statute.
Did the General Assembly really intend that this language could be ignored with impunity?
Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6770308. Public record. Not legal advice.