# State ex rel. Smith v. Etheridge

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 15, 1992 · 65 Ohio St. 3d 501

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801007

## Case

- **Full name:** The State Ex Rel. Smith, Appellant, v. Etheridge, Superintendent, Et Al., Appellees. the State Ex Rel. Brown Et Al., Appellants, v. Columbus Public Schools Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 15, 1992
- **Citations:** 65 Ohio St. 3d 501; 1992 Ohio 13
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Wright
- **Judges:** Sweeney, Brown, Resnick, Douglas, Moyer, Holmes, Wright
- **Cited by:** 23 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/9801007

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- observing that, ordinarily, state law validates an unwritten school employment understanding where “the employee performs his or her duties as though a written contract were present”

## Opinion text

Wright, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part. I respectfully dissent from the court’s opinion in Parts I and II for the reasons I have stated previously in my dissents in State ex rel. Brennan v. Vinton Cty. Local Bd. of Edn. (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 208, 210 , 18 OBR 271, 273, 480 N.E.2d 476, 478 , and State ex rel. Luckey v. Etheridge (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 404, 407 , 583 N.E.2d 960, 963 . Relators received adequate notice and an opportunity to discuss the reasons for nonrenewal at the board meeting. This is sufficient to comply with R.C. 3319.02.
I concur in Part III of the majority’s opinion.
Moyer, C.J., and Holmes, J., concur in the foregoing opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9801007. Public record. Not legal advice.