No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the county's motion for summary judgment on political subdivision immunity, holding that the false light invasion of privacy claim arose out of the employment relationship under R.C. 2744.09(B). The court dismissed the statute of limitations argument as premature.
R.C. 2744.02, political subdivision immunity, summary judgment, R.C. 2744.09, employment relationship, employee. Plaintiff's claims arose out of her employment relationship with the county, and the county is not immune from liability pursuant to the exception in R.C. 2744.09(B).
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.