holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to amend its answer to add the defense of sovereign immunity after the case had been pending for almost three years including a prior motion for summary judgment and appeal up to the Supreme Court
How later courts described this case
- holding that the trial court abused its discretion in granting defendant's motion to amend its answer to add the defense of sovereign immunity after the case had been pending for almost three years including a prior motion for summary judgment and appeal up to the Supreme Court
- stating the defense of discretionary immunity is an affirmative defense No. 22AP-125 13 within the contemplation of Civ.R. 8(C)
- reversing the grant of the defendant school districts motion to include a statutory immunity defense in part because the district failed to assert the defense in a timely manner and its failure to do so made it reasonable for the plaintiffs to assume the defense would be waived
- trial court abused its discretion in granting a motion for leave to amend a pleading under Civ.R. 15(A
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pfeifer, J.,
concurring. While the school district in this case did waive its immunity defense, in my view it was a defense that never existed. I believe that Ohio’s sovereign immunity statutes are unconstitutional, for the reasons stated in my concurring opinion in Garrett v. Sandusky (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 139, 141 , 624 N.E.2d 704, 706 .