Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11 (2026)

Continuing service status - limited contract - notice of intent not to re-employ

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) As used in this section:

(1) "Evaluation procedures" means the procedures required by the policy adopted pursuant to division (A) of section 3319.111 of the Revised Code.

(2) "Limited contract" means a limited contract, as described in section 3319.08 of the Revised Code, that a school district board of education or governing board of an educational service center enters into with a teacher who is not eligible for continuing service status.

(3) "Extended limited contract" means a limited contract, as described in section 3319.08 of the Revised Code, that a board of education or governing board enters into with a teacher who is eligible for continuing service status.

(B) Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any city, exempted village, local, or joint vocational school district or educational service center shall be those teachers qualified as described in division (D) of section 3319.08 of the Revised Code, who within the last five years have taught for at least three years in the district or center, and those teachers who, having attained continuing contract status elsewhere, have served two years in the district or center, but the board, upon the recommendation of the superintendent, may at the time of employment or at any time within such two-year period, declare any of the latter teachers eligible.

(1) Upon the recommendation of the superintendent that a teacher eligible for continuing service status be reemployed, a continuing contract shall be entered into between the board and the teacher unless the board by a three-fourths vote of its full membership rejects the recommendation of the superintendent. If the board rejects by a three-fourths vote of its full membership the recommendation of the superintendent that a teacher eligible for continuing service status be reemployed and the superintendent makes no recommendation to the board pursuant to division (C) of this section, the board may declare its intention not to reemploy the teacher by giving the teacher written notice on or before the first day of June of its intention not to reemploy the teacher. If evaluation procedures have not been complied with pursuant to section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or the board does not give the teacher written notice on or before the first day of June of its intention not to reemploy the teacher, the teacher is deemed reemployed under an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year at the same salary plus any increment provided by the salary schedule. The teacher is presumed to have accepted employment under the extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year unless such teacher notifies the board in writing to the contrary on or before the fifteenth day of June, and an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year shall be executed accordingly. Upon any subsequent reemployment of the teacher only a continuing contract may be entered into.

(2) If the superintendent recommends that a teacher eligible for continuing service status not be reemployed, the board may declare its intention not to reemploy the teacher by giving the teacher written notice on or before the first day of June of its intention not to reemploy the teacher. If evaluation procedures have not been complied with pursuant to section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or the board does not give the teacher written notice on or before the first day of June of its intention not to reemploy the teacher, the teacher is deemed reemployed under an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year at the same salary plus any increment provided by the salary schedule. The teacher is presumed to have accepted employment under the extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year unless such teacher notifies the board in writing to the contrary on or before the fifteenth day of June, and an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year shall be executed accordingly. Upon any subsequent reemployment of a teacher only a continuing contract may be entered into.

(3) Any teacher receiving written notice of the intention of a board not to reemploy such teacher pursuant to this division is entitled to the hearing provisions of division (G) of this section.

(C)(1) If a board rejects the recommendation of the superintendent for reemployment of a teacher pursuant to division (B)(1) of this section, the superintendent may recommend reemployment of the teacher, if continuing service status has not previously been attained elsewhere, under an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed two years, provided that written notice of the superintendent's intention to make such recommendation has been given to the teacher with reasons directed at the professional improvement of the teacher on or before the first day of June. Upon subsequent reemployment of the teacher only a continuing contract may be entered into.

(2) If a board of education takes affirmative action on a superintendent's recommendation, made pursuant to division (C)(1) of this section, of an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed two years but the board does not give the teacher written notice of its affirmative action on the superintendent's recommendation of an extended limited contract on or before the first day of June, the teacher is deemed reemployed under a continuing contract at the same salary plus any increment provided by the salary schedule. The teacher is presumed to have accepted employment under such continuing contract unless such teacher notifies the board in writing to the contrary on or before the fifteenth day of June, and a continuing contract shall be executed accordingly.

(3) A board shall not reject a superintendent's recommendation, made pursuant to division (C)(1) of this section, of an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed two years except by a three-fourths vote of its full membership. If a board rejects by a three-fourths vote of its full membership the recommendation of the superintendent of an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed two years, the board may declare its intention not to reemploy the teacher by giving the teacher written notice on or before the first day of June of its intention not to reemploy the teacher. If evaluation procedures have not been complied with pursuant to section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or if the board does not give the teacher written notice on or before the first day of June of its intention not to reemploy the teacher, the teacher is deemed reemployed under an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year at the same salary plus any increment provided by the salary schedule. The teacher is presumed to have accepted employment under the extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year unless such teacher notifies the board in writing to the contrary on or before the fifteenth day of June, and an extended limited contract for a term not to exceed one year shall be executed accordingly. Upon any subsequent reemployment of the teacher only a continuing contract may be entered into.

Any teacher receiving written notice of the intention of a board not to reemploy such teacher pursuant to this division is entitled to the hearing provisions of division (G) of this section.

(D) A teacher eligible for continuing contract status employed under an extended limited contract pursuant to division (B) or (C) of this section, is, at the expiration of such extended limited contract, deemed reemployed under a continuing contract at the same salary plus any increment granted by the salary schedule, unless evaluation procedures have been complied with pursuant to section 3319.111 of the Revised Code and the employing board, acting on the superintendent's recommendation that the teacher not be reemployed, gives the teacher written notice on or before the first day of June of its intention not to reemploy such teacher. A teacher who does not have evaluation procedures applied in compliance with section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or who does not receive notice on or before the first day of June of the intention of the board not to reemploy such teacher is presumed to have accepted employment under a continuing contract unless such teacher notifies the board in writing to the contrary on or before the fifteenth day of June, and a continuing contract shall be executed accordingly.

Any teacher receiving a written notice of the intention of a board not to reemploy such teacher pursuant to this division is entitled to the hearing provisions of division (G) of this section.

(E) The board shall enter into a limited contract with each teacher employed by the board who is not eligible to be considered for a continuing contract.

Any teacher employed under a limited contract, and not eligible to be considered for a continuing contract, is, at the expiration of such limited contract, considered reemployed under the provisions of this division at the same salary plus any increment provided by the salary schedule unless evaluation procedures have been complied with pursuant to section 3319.111 of the Revised Code and the employing board, acting upon the superintendent's written recommendation that the teacher not be reemployed, gives such teacher written notice of its intention not to reemploy such teacher on or before the first day of June. A teacher who does not have evaluation procedures applied in compliance with section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or who does not receive notice of the intention of the board not to reemploy such teacher on or before the first day of June is presumed to have accepted such employment unless such teacher notifies the board in writing to the contrary on or before the fifteenth day of June, and a written contract for the succeeding school year shall be executed accordingly.

Any teacher receiving a written notice of the intention of a board not to reemploy such teacher pursuant to this division is entitled to the hearing provisions of division (G) of this section.

(F) The failure of a superintendent to make a recommendation to the board under any of the conditions set forth in divisions (B) to (E) of this section, or the failure of the board to give such teacher a written notice pursuant to divisions (C) to (E) of this section shall not prejudice or prevent a teacher from being deemed reemployed under either a limited or continuing contract as the case may be under the provisions of this section. A failure of the parties to execute a written contract shall not void any automatic reemployment provisions of this section.

(G)(1) Any teacher receiving written notice of the intention of a board of education not to reemploy such teacher pursuant to division (B), (C)(3), (D), or (E) of this section may, within ten days of the date of receipt of the notice, file with the treasurer of the board a written demand for a written statement describing the circumstances that led to the board's intention not to reemploy the teacher.

(2) The treasurer of a board, on behalf of the board, shall, within ten days of the date of receipt of a written demand for a written statement pursuant to division (G)(1) of this section, provide to the teacher a written statement describing the circumstances that led to the board's intention not to reemploy the teacher.

(3) Any teacher receiving a written statement describing the circumstances that led to the board's intention not to reemploy the teacher pursuant to division (G)(2) of this section may, within five days of the date of receipt of the statement, file with the treasurer of the board a written demand for a hearing before the board pursuant to divisions (G)(4) to (6) of this section.

(4) The treasurer of a board, on behalf of the board, shall, within ten days of the date of receipt of a written demand for a hearing pursuant to division (G)(3) of this section, provide to the teacher a written notice setting forth the time, date, and place of the hearing. The board shall schedule and conclude the hearing within forty days of the date on which the treasurer of the board receives a written demand for a hearing pursuant to division (G)(3) of this section.

(5) Any hearing conducted pursuant to this division shall be conducted by a majority of the members of the board. The hearing shall be held in executive session of the board unless the board and the teacher agree to hold the hearing in public. The superintendent, assistant superintendent, the teacher, and any person designated by either party to take a record of the hearing may be present at the hearing. The board may be represented by counsel and the teacher may be represented by counsel or a designee. A record of the hearing may be taken by either party at the expense of the party taking the record.

(6) Within ten days of the conclusion of a hearing conducted pursuant to this division, the board shall issue to the teacher a written decision containing an order affirming the intention of the board not to reemploy the teacher reported in the notice given to the teacher pursuant to division (B), (C)(3), (D), or (E) of this section or an order vacating the intention not to reemploy and expunging any record of the intention, notice of the intention, and the hearing conducted pursuant to this division.

(7) A teacher may appeal an order affirming the intention of the board not to reemploy the teacher to the court of common pleas of the county in which the largest portion of the territory of the school district or service center is located, within thirty days of the date on which the teacher receives the written decision, on the grounds that the board has not complied with this section or section 3319.111 of the Revised Code.

Notwithstanding section 2506.04 of the Revised Code, the court in an appeal under this division is limited to the determination of procedural errors and to ordering the correction of procedural errors and shall have no jurisdiction to order a board to reemploy a teacher, except that the court may order a board to reemploy a teacher in compliance with the requirements of division (B), (C)(3), (D), or (E) of this section when the court determines that evaluation procedures have not been complied with pursuant to section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or the board has not given the teacher written notice on or before the first day of June of its intention not to reemploy the teacher pursuant to division (B), (C)(3), (D), or (E) of this section. Otherwise, the determination whether to reemploy or not reemploy a teacher is solely a board's determination and not a proper subject of judicial review and, except as provided in this division, no decision of a board whether to reemploy or not reemploy a teacher shall be invalidated by the court on any basis, including that the decision was not warranted by the results of any evaluation or was not warranted by any statement given pursuant to division (G)(2) of this section.

No appeal of an order of a board may be made except as specified in this division.

(H)(1) In giving a teacher any notice required by division (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this section, the board or the superintendent shall do either of the following:

(a) Deliver the notice by personal service upon the teacher;

(b) Deliver the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular mail with a certificate of mailing, or other form of delivery with proof of delivery, addressed to the teacher at the teacher's place of employment and deliver a copy of the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular mail with a certificate of mailing, or other form of delivery with proof of delivery, addressed to the teacher at the teacher's place of residence. Delivery of the notice required under division (H)(1)(b) of this section may be satisfied by electronic delivery with electronic proof of delivery.

(2) In giving a board any notice required by division (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this section, the teacher shall do either of the following:

(a) Deliver the notice by personal delivery to the office of the superintendent during regular business hours;

(b) Deliver the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular mail with a certificate of mailing, or other form of delivery with proof of delivery, addressed to the office of the superintendent and deliver a copy of the notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, regular mail with a certificate of mailing, or other form of delivery with proof of delivery, addressed to the president of the board at the president's place of residence. Delivery of the notice required under division (H)(2)(b) of this section may be satisfied by electronic delivery with electronic proof of delivery.

(3) When any notice and copy of the notice are mailed pursuant to division (H)(1)(b) or (2)(b) of this section, the notice or copy of the notice with the earlier date of receipt shall constitute the notice for the purposes of division (B), (C), (D), or (E) of this section.

(I) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any supplemental written contracts entered into pursuant to section 3319.08 of the Revised Code.

(J) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in Chapter 4117. of the Revised Code, the dates set forth in this section as "on or before the first day of June" or "on or before the fifteenth day of June" prevail over any conflicting provisions of a collective bargaining agreement entered into on or after March 22, 2013.

Last updated August 16, 2023 at 12:31 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 138 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1955–2025 · leading case: Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 29× “In resolving the instant appeal, we are guided by the standard that R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 are remedial statutes that must be liberally construed in favor of teachers.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 25× “This case and the companion cases which follow provide this court with its first opportunity to address legal issues arising under R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 as amended and enacted by Am.”
Gerner v. Salem City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 23× “If a court is not authorized to reinstate her with back pay, she argues that she may still be awarded back pay alone.”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 20× “] Civil law—R.C. 3319.11—R.C. 3319.111—When considering nonrenewal of a teacher’s limited teaching contract under R.”
State ex rel. Brown v. Milton-Union Exempted Vill. Bd. of Educ., 531 N.E.2d 1297 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 13× “Her claim to a continuing contract is founded on R.C. 3319.11, which provides in pertinent part: “Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be those teachers qualified as to certification, who within the last five years have taught for at least…”
State ex rel. Rollins v. Bd. of Educ., 532 N.E.2d 1289 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 12× “11 provides in relevant part that “[t]eachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be those teachers qualified as to certification, who within the last five years have taught for at least three years in the district* * *.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 21 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 29× “] Schools—Teachers—Nonrenewal of limited teaching contract—R.C. 3319.11 does not provide procedure that must be followed in an appeal pursuant to subdivision (G)(7)—Procedural provisions of R.”
State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 69 Ohio St. 3d 217 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 4× “By contrast, as appellee notes, R.C. 3319.11 specifically provides that a board’s failure to comply with the teacher evaluation requirements of R.”
State, Ex Rel. Williams v. Belpre City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 534 N.E.2d 96 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 16× “11 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: “Teachers eligible for continuing service status in any school district shall be those teachers qualified as to certification, who within the last five years have taught for at least three years in the district, and those teachers who,…”
Geib v. Triway Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 705 N.E.2d 326 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 16× “R.C. 3319.11 was revised in 1989 to give procedural safeguards to nontenured teachers.”
Hunt v. Westlake City Sch. Dist., 653 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 28× “Defendants maintain, and the trial court concluded, that plaintiffs have invoked an improper form of relief by filing the instant action, since they were required to perfect a statutory appeal within thirty days after the proceedings before the board, pursuant to R.C. 3319.11.…”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 11× “This case addresses the procedures to be followed, under R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111, before a board of education can decide not to renew the limited contract between itself and a teacher.”
Show all 138 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(1) — 1 case
Hara v. Montgomery Cnty. Jt. Vocational Sch. Dist., 75 Ohio St. 3d 60 (Ohio 1996).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(A) — 1 case
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(A)(1) — 2 cases
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994).
Matola v. Mathews Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 5717 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(A)(2) — 3 cases
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024). “] Civil law—R.C. 3319.11—R.C. 3319.111—When considering nonrenewal of a teacher’s limited teaching contract under R.”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024).
Cline v. Fairland Local Sch. Dist., 2013 Ohio 886 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(A)(3) — 1 case
Cline v. Fairland Local Sch. Dist., 2013 Ohio 886 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(B) — 10 cases
East Canton Educ. Ass'n v. McIntosh, 85 Ohio St. 3d 465 (Ohio 1999).
State ex rel. Rodriguez v. Lorain Cnty. Jt. Vocational Sch., 2025 Ohio 127 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
Rickel v. Cloverleaf Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 608 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Driver v. Jefferson Twp. Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2012 Ohio 1570 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012).
State ex rel. Donah v. Windham Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 687 (Ohio 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(B)(1) — 4 cases
East Canton Educ. Ass'n v. McIntosh, 85 Ohio St. 3d 465 (Ohio 1999).
State ex rel. Jones v. Dayton Pub. Schs. Bd. of Edn., 2020 Ohio 4931 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994).
E. Canton Edn. Assn. v. McIntosh, 1999 Ohio 282 (Ohio 1999).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(B)(2) — 4 cases
W. Branch Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. W. Branch Edn. Assn., 2015 Ohio 2753 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
Snyder v. Mendon-Union Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 661 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1996).
Snyder v. Mendon-Union Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1996 Ohio 138 (Ohio 1996).
Cline v. Fairland Local Sch. Dist., 2013 Ohio 886 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(B)(3) — 1 case
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 22 (Ohio 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(C)(3) — 1 case
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(D) — 1 case
Cline v. Fairland Local Sch. Dist., 2013 Ohio 886 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(E) — 19 cases
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024). “] Civil law—R.C. 3319.11—R.C. 3319.111—When considering nonrenewal of a teacher’s limited teaching contract under R.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio 1994). “This case and the companion cases which follow provide this court with its first opportunity to address legal issues arising under R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 as amended and enacted by Am.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 21 (Ohio 1994). “] Schools—Teachers—Nonrenewal of limited teaching contract—R.C. 3319.11 does not provide procedure that must be followed in an appeal pursuant to subdivision (G)(7)—Procedural provisions of R.”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1994). “This case addresses the procedures to be followed, under R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111, before a board of education can decide not to renew the limited contract between itself and a teacher.”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2023 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(G) — 9 cases
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). “In resolving the instant appeal, we are guided by the standard that R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 are remedial statutes that must be liberally construed in favor of teachers.”
Gerner v. Salem City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio 1994). “If a court is not authorized to reinstate her with back pay, she argues that she may still be awarded back pay alone.”
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 22 (Ohio 1994).
Geib v. Triway Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 705 N.E.2d 326 (Ohio 1999). “R.C. 3319.11 was revised in 1989 to give procedural safeguards to nontenured teachers.”
Hunt v. Westlake City Sch. Dist., 653 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “Defendants maintain, and the trial court concluded, that plaintiffs have invoked an improper form of relief by filing the instant action, since they were required to perfect a statutory appeal within thirty days after the proceedings before the board, pursuant to R.C. 3319.11.…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(G)(1) — 9 cases
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio 1994). “This case and the companion cases which follow provide this court with its first opportunity to address legal issues arising under R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 as amended and enacted by Am.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 21 (Ohio 1994). “] Schools—Teachers—Nonrenewal of limited teaching contract—R.C. 3319.11 does not provide procedure that must be followed in an appeal pursuant to subdivision (G)(7)—Procedural provisions of R.”
Geib v. Triway Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 705 N.E.2d 326 (Ohio 1999). “R.C. 3319.11 was revised in 1989 to give procedural safeguards to nontenured teachers.”
State ex rel. Smith v. Etheridge, 1992 Ohio 13 (Ohio 1992).
Skilton v. Perry Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 102 Ohio St. 3d 173 (Ohio 2004).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(G)(2) — 12 cases
Geib v. Triway Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 705 N.E.2d 326 (Ohio 1999). “R.C. 3319.11 was revised in 1989 to give procedural safeguards to nontenured teachers.”
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). “In resolving the instant appeal, we are guided by the standard that R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 are remedial statutes that must be liberally construed in favor of teachers.”
Gerner v. Salem City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio 1994). “If a court is not authorized to reinstate her with back pay, she argues that she may still be awarded back pay alone.”
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 22 (Ohio 1994).
Milliken-Dees v. Salem City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 855 N.E.2d 932 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(G)(3) — 10 cases
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). “In resolving the instant appeal, we are guided by the standard that R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 are remedial statutes that must be liberally construed in favor of teachers.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio 1994). “This case and the companion cases which follow provide this court with its first opportunity to address legal issues arising under R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 as amended and enacted by Am.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 21 (Ohio 1994). “] Schools—Teachers—Nonrenewal of limited teaching contract—R.C. 3319.11 does not provide procedure that must be followed in an appeal pursuant to subdivision (G)(7)—Procedural provisions of R.”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2023 Ohio 265 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 22 (Ohio 1994).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(G)(4) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Geib v. Triway Local Bd. of Educ., 744 N.E.2d 197 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(G)(5) — 5 cases
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). “In resolving the instant appeal, we are guided by the standard that R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 are remedial statutes that must be liberally construed in favor of teachers.”
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 1994 Ohio 22 (Ohio 1994).
Hunt v. Westlake City Sch. Dist., 653 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “Defendants maintain, and the trial court concluded, that plaintiffs have invoked an improper form of relief by filing the instant action, since they were required to perfect a statutory appeal within thirty days after the proceedings before the board, pursuant to R.C. 3319.11.…”
Young v. Washington Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 619 N.E.2d 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).
McComb v. Gahanna-Jefferson City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 720 N.E.2d 984 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(G)(6) — 3 cases
Hunt v. Westlake City Sch. Dist., 653 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “Defendants maintain, and the trial court concluded, that plaintiffs have invoked an improper form of relief by filing the instant action, since they were required to perfect a statutory appeal within thirty days after the proceedings before the board, pursuant to R.C. 3319.11.…”
Rickel v. Cloverleaf Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 608 N.E.2d 767 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
State ex rel. Smith v. Etheridge, 1992 Ohio 13 (Ohio 1992).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(G)(7) — 37 cases
Naylor v. Cardinal Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 725 (Ohio 1994). “In resolving the instant appeal, we are guided by the standard that R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 are remedial statutes that must be liberally construed in favor of teachers.”
Kiel v. Green Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio 1994). “This case and the companion cases which follow provide this court with its first opportunity to address legal issues arising under R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111 as amended and enacted by Am.”
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 721 (Ohio 1994). “This case addresses the procedures to be followed, under R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111, before a board of education can decide not to renew the limited contract between itself and a teacher.”
Gerner v. Salem City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 630 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio 1994). “If a court is not authorized to reinstate her with back pay, she argues that she may still be awarded back pay alone.”
Jones v. Kent City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2024 Ohio 2844 (Ohio 2024). “] Civil law—R.C. 3319.11—R.C. 3319.111—When considering nonrenewal of a teacher’s limited teaching contract under R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(I) — 1 case
Hara v. Montgomery Cty. Jt. Vocational Sch. Dist., 1996 Ohio 131 (Ohio 1996).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.11(N) — 1 case
Farmer v. Kelleys Island Bd. of Educ., 638 N.E.2d 79 (Ohio 1994).
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.