Opinion

Clermont County ADAMH Board v. Hogan

  • 79 Ohio St. 3d 358
  • 681 N.E.2d 1322
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Aug 13, 1997
Status
Published
Author
Cook
On the bench
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Only, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney
Cited by
2 cases

The opinion

Cook, J.,

concurring in judgment only. Because the trial court’s bifurcation order prevents this court from determining whether the Director of Mental Health violated any statutory obligation other than that imposed by R.C. 5119.62(B)(2), the syllabus language suggesting a degree of “discretion” in the Director’s role under R.C. 5119.62(B)(1) is advisory. While I express no opinion as to the accuracy of the majority’s limited interpretation of R.C. 5119.62(B)(1), I believe that the interpretation is an invalid exercise of our judicial authority. Accordingly, I concur in judgment only.

Douglas, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.