Sabo v. Schott
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed. Plaintiffs allegation that he was fired as a result of having testified truthfully, albeit unfavorably to the defendants, if proven to be true, would constitute conduct on the part of the defendants which violates the public policy of this state. This cause is remanded to the trial court to apply Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 639 N.E.2d 51 .
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Wright, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Douglas, J., dissents. F.E. Sweeney, J., not participating.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that a Greeley claim was stated where a complaint alleged an act which, "if proven to be true, would constitute conduct on the part of the defendants which violates the public policy of this state")
Cited by 8 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.