When it becomes necessary in a police or fire department, through lack of work or funds, or for causes other than those outlined in section 124.34 of the Revised Code, to reduce the force in such department, the youngest employee in point of service shall be first laid off. Should a position in the police or fire department once abolished or made unnecessary be found necessary to be re-created or re-established within three years from the date of abolishment, or should a vacancy occur through death, resignation, or any other cause within three years from the date of the abolishment of the position or layoff, the oldest employee in point of service of those laid off shall be entitled to the position, providing he was at the date of his separation a regular and permanent employee. If any employee, laid off as prescribed in this section, enters into the active service of the army, navy, marine corps, or other armed service of the United States, the period such employee serves therein shall not be considered in the determination of the three years stipulated as a maximum time within which reinstatements shall be made; such three-year period shall be computed exclusive of the time the employee spent in the armed services. When a position above the rank of patrolman in the police department and above the rank of regular fireman in the fire department is abolished, and the incumbent has been permanently appointed, he shall be demoted to the next lower rank and the youngest officer in point of service in the next lower rank shall be demoted, and so on down until the youngest person in point of service has been reached, who shall be laid off.
Hungler v. City of Cincinnati, 496 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 16דThis appeal also presents the fundamental question of whether the city should have been required to comply with R.C. 124.37 under the circumstances of the instant case.”
Zavisin v. City of Loveland, 541 N.E.2d 1055 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 13ד44, 1 which provides the procedure for pro *160 motion of police patrolmen, and R.C. 124.37, 2 which sets forth the procedure for removals, reappointments and demotions in police and fire departments.”
McAlpin v. Shirey, 698 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1997). · cites it 9דBecause of the abolishment, appellant was promoted to assistant police chief for one day and then demoted the following day, pursuant to the procedure set forth in R.C. 124.37. Appellant presents two assignments of error for review.”
State ex rel. Bardo v. City of Lyndhurst, 524 N.E.2d 447 (Ohio 1988). “Here, however, there were neither allegations of bad faith nor any facts entered into the record to show any bad faith or an intentional violation of laws by the city.”
Vogeler v. City of Cincinnati, 476 N.E.2d 676 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1984). · cites it 5דR.C. 124.37 reads, in relevant part, as follows: “When a position above the rank of patrolman in the police department and above the rank of regular fireman in the fire department is abolished, and the incumbent has been permanently appointed, he shall be demoted to the next…”
Lane v. Cincinnati Civil Serv. Comm'n, 702 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1997). · cites it 13דThe defendant-appellant Cincinnati Civil Service Commission (“the CCSC”) held by a two-to-one vote that (1) it had jurisdiction to hear the promotion-eligible firefighters’ complaint, and (2) the claims of the promotion-eligible firefighters should be reexamined, and status and…”
State ex rel. Bednar v. City of North Canton, 69 Ohio St. 3d 278 (1994). · cites it 5ד44 is mandatory upon the occurrence of a vacancy in a position above police patrolman, and the vacant position must be filled by appointment before it is abolished pursuant to R.C. 124.37, which presupposes the existence of an incumbent.”
Smith v. City of Cincinnati, 619 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1993). · cites it 10דre to post the notice of *16 complement would have on compliance by appellees with Ohio’s civil service laws; (3) what entity has the authority to establish the sergeants’ complement; (4) what method was used to set the complement at one hundred fifteen on November 3, 1982; (5)…”
State ex rel. Mylott v. McKelvey, 785 N.E.2d 759 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). · cites it 2דThe issue raised on appeal requires us to interpret the language of both R.C. 124.37 and 124.44. As the construction of a statute is a question of law, not fact, a trial court’s interpretation of a statute is not entitled to deference on appeal.”
State ex rel. Bednar v. N. Canton, 69 Ohio St. 3d 278 (1994). · cites it 5ד44 is mandatory upon the occurrence of a vacancy in a position above police patrolman, and the vacant position must be filled by appointment before it is abolished pursuant to R.C. 124.37, which presupposes the existence of an incumbent.”
State ex rel. Cochran v. Boardman Twp. Bd. of Trs., 2011-Ohio-4255, 962 N.E.2d 852. “328, R.C. 124.37, and any other applicable civil service statute or rule having to deal with the filling and abolishment of positions above the rank of patrolman with this language.”
State ex rel. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. Warren (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-5372, 164 N.E.3d 440. · cites it 39ד44 because city had passed authorized-strength ordinance abolishing their positions upon their retirement—R.C. 124.37 does not require demotion or layoff whenever a reduction of authorized strength of a police force has been enacted—Court of appeals’ dismissal of petition…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.