Ohio Supreme Court, 1980

Stromberg v. Bd. of Edn. of Bratenahl

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided December 17, 1980 · Brown, Celebrezze, Dowd, Holmes, Locher, McBride, Second, Sweeney

64 Ohio St. 2d 98; 413 N.E.2d 1184; 18 Ohio Op. 3d 343; 1980 Ohio LEXIS 841

Cases that cite this one

57 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp. (Ohio 1998)
Ameigh v. Baycliffs Corp. (Ohio 1998)
Gault v. Medina Cty. Court of Common Pleas Clerk (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
Sterling S. Miller v. Vincent Schoemehl (8th Cir. 1996)
Painter v. Graley (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
City Of Canton, Ohio v. Maynard (6th Cir. 1985)
City of Canton v. Maynard (6th Cir. 1985)
Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education (Supreme Court of the United States 1984)
weston v. winooski (Vermont Superior Court 2023)
Malcolm-Smith v. Goff (Ohio 2000)
Crago v. Kinzie (Harrison County Court of Common Pleas 2000)
Malcolm-Smith v. Goff (Ohio 2000)
Packer, Thomas & Co. v. Eyster (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)
Tyus v. Schoemehl (8th Cir. 1996)
Consumers United Insurance v. Bustamante (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
Independent Insurance Agents of Ohio, Inc. v. Duryee (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Gerstenberger v. City of Macedonia (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Cashelmara Villas Ltd. Partnership v. Dibenedetto (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
Jackson v. Lou Cohen, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
State ex rel. White v. Franklin County Board of Elections (Ohio 1992)
State, Ex Rel. Martinelli v. Corrigan (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
State v. E.T. (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
Myers v. Vandermark (Ohio Ct. App. 2024)
Morgan v. Natale (Ohio Ct. App. 2022)
State v. Brooks (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

While one may admire the persistence of the citizens and taxpayers of the village of Bratenahl to reestablish a local school district, it has been determined that the local district failed to meet the standards established by the General Assembly in R. C. 3311.29 and repeatedly stated that the Bratenahl Local School District was regularly dissolved.

The determinative issue before this court is whether the judgment that the Bratenahl Local School District has been dissolved is res judicata as to the appellant as a taxpayer.*

This court has uniformly adhered to the doctrine of res judicata to prevent repeated attacks upon a final judgment. The doctrine applies not only to what was determined but also to every question which might properly have been litigated. State, ex rel. Ohio Water Service Co., v. Mahoning Valley Sanitary Dist. (1959), 169 Ohio St. 31, paragraph one of the syllabus; Quinn v. State, ex rel. Leroy (1928), 118 Ohio St. 48, paragraph one of the syllabus; Burton, Inc., v. Durkee (1954), 162 Ohio St. 433, paragraph two of the syllabus; Pollock v. Cohen (1877), 32 Ohio St. 514, paragraph four of the syllabus. The constitutional issues involved in the case at bar could have been litigated in the board’s initial action.

Appellant essentially argues that as a taxpayer he has a private right, independent of the Bratenahl board of educa*101tion, to relitigate the same public issue determined against the board. This may be true where causes of action are not the same or where the taxpayer has a different private right not shared in common with the public; however, a judgment for or against a governmental body is binding and conclusive as res judicata on all residents, citizens and taxpayers with respect to matters adjudicated which are of general and public interest. Cincinnati, ex rel. Crotty, v. Cincinnati (1977), 50 Ohio St. 2d 27, 28.

Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals dismissing the complaint herein is affirmed.

Judgment accordingly.

Celebrezze, C. J., W. Brown, McBride, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes and Dowd, JJ., concur. McBride, J., of the Second Appellate District, sitting for P. Brown, J.

While it may be said that the issue here is moot because the judgment has been executed, the Bratenahl School District dissolved and the property transferred, the approval of that course of action exists in the prior adjudications of this court. A moot question is one that need not be decided. Where an issue has been resolved, res judicata is the appropriate principle to be applied.

Further, based upon our disposition of this issue herein, infra, this court does not reach the issue of the constitutionality of R. C. 3311.29.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.