STROHOFER, EXECUTRIX, ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF CINCINNATI, APPELLEE.
MASCARI ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CHAN, APPELLANT, ET AL.
CITY OF COLUMBUS, APPELLEE.
Supreme Court of Ohio.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Decided August 3, 1983.
Decided August 3, 1983.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Messrs. Spraul & Reyering, Mr. Thomas C. Spraul and Mr. Patrick J. Cronin, for appellants in case No. 82-674.
Mr. Richard A. Castellini, city solicitor, and Mr. Daniel J. Schlueter, for appellee in case No. 82-674, and urging affirmance for amicus curiae, city of Cincinnati, in case No. 82-1504.
Charles R. Andrews Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Charles R. Andrews, for appellants Mascaris, in case No. 82-1504.
Messrs, Knepper, White, Arter & Hadden, Mr. Louis E. Gerber and Ms. Sally Ann Walters, for appellant Chan, in case No. 82-1504.
Mr. Gregory S. Lashutka, city attorney, Mr. Patrick M. McGrath and Ms. Deborah S. Everson, for appellee city of Columbus, in case No. 82-1504.
Mr. Harry E. Klide, director of law, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, city of Canton, in case No. 82-1504.
Mr. John D. Maddox, director of law, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, city of Cleveland, in case no. 82-1504.
Mr. Sheldon M. Rosen, director of law, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, city of Toledo, in case No. 82-1504.
Mr. Thomas G. Petkewitz, director of law, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, city of Dayton, in case No. 82-1504.
Mr. Edward J. Riegler, director of law, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, city of Akron, in case No. 82-1504.
Mr. Edward N. Sobnosky, director of law, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, city of Youngstown, in case No. 82-1504.
Messrs. Calfee, Halter & Griswold and Mr. John E. Gotherman, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio Municipal League, in case No. 82-1504.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
J. P. CELEBREZZE, J.
In each of these cases we are asked to determine whether appellant's claims against the respective municipalities for damages arising from the allegedly tortious design and placement of traffic control devices, are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
In view of our recent decision in Haverlack v. Portage Homes, Inc. (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 26, we hold that they are not. Therein...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
