Summary
In Criss v. Springfield Twp. (1989), 43 Ohio St.3d 83, 538 N.E.2d 406, the court stated that, when the court of appeals uses moot, it means that it is irrelevant.
Summary of this case from Knutty v. WallaceOpinion
No. 88-1236
Submitted March 14, 1989 —
Decided May 17, 1989.
Appellate procedure — App. R. 12(A) — Court of appeals may not treat assignments of error as "moot" or "irrelevant" after deciding case on another issue.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, Nos. 13262 and 13271.
ON MOTION TO REMAND.
In 1983, appellants, Gary and Everett Criss, were indicted for raping Timothy Criss, their son and grandson respectively. They were acquitted. In 1984, appellants filed suit, later amended, against Springfield Township, and appellees, Springfield Township Police Department, Carl Frank Blasdel, Daniel Lance, and Myra Criss. Blasdel and Lance are officers of the Springfield Township Police Department who investigated the alleged rapes. Myra Criss is the ex-wife of Gary Criss. The suit alleged malicious prosecution, false arrest, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent or reckless hiring, training and assignment of personnel and officers. After a jury trial, judgments were rendered and compensatory and punitive damages were assessed against Blasdel, Lance, and Myra Criss. Appellees appealed to the Court of Appeals for Summit County.
Blasdel and Lance presented fourteen assignments of error to the court of appeals. Myra Criss presented three assignments of error. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court on one assignment of error presented by all parties — that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the results of certain polygraph tests to be admitted into evidence. It also reversed the trial court's judgment on another of Blasdel and Lance's assignments of error regarding Everett Criss' claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress. It overruled four of Blasdel and Lance's other assignments of error, stating its reasons. However, it ignored one of their assignments of error altogether and held the remaining seven, and Myra Criss' remaining two, assignments of error moot because of its decision to reverse and remand for a new trial on the polygraph issue.
Gary and Everett Criss appealed to this court. On December 14, 1988, this court allowed the motion to certify the record. On February 2, 1989, appellees filed a motion to remand to the court of appeals, alleging that that court had failed to comply with App. R. 12(A).
The cause is before this court on the motion to remand.
Grisi Riegler and Charles E. Grisi, for appellants.
Nukes Perantinides Co., L.P.A., Paul G. Perantinides, Samuel G. Casolari, Jr., and Elizabeth B. Manning, for appellees Springfield Township Police Department, Carl F. Blasdel, and Daniel Lance.
John O. McIntyre, Jr., and Linda Tucci Teodosio, for appellee Myra Criss.
App. R. 12(A) states in part:
"* * * All errors assigned and briefed shall be passed upon by the court in writing, stating the reasons for the court's decision as to each such error."
This court has repeatedly reversed and remanded judgments that failed to comply with this part of the rule. See Lumbermen's Underwriting Alliance v. American Excelsior Corp. (1973), 33 Ohio St.2d 37, 62 O.O. 2d 373, 294 N.E.2d 224; State v. Jennings (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 389, 23 O.O. 3d 354, 433 N.E.2d 157; Dougherty v. Torrence (1982), 2 Ohio St.3d 69, 2 OBR 625, 442 N.E.2d 1295; Danner v. Medical Center Hospital (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 19, 8 OBR 167, 456 N.E.2d 503.
In Jennings, the Court of Appeals for Licking County sustained one assignment of error and because of this failed to address three others, calling them "irrelevant." We reversed, holding that the court had to comply with the rule and state reasons for its decision so that the parties would not have to speculate on the legal and other obstacles to be overcome on appeal to this court. Here, the court of appeals has used "moot" in the same sense that the Court of Appeals for Licking County used "irrelevant" — meaning the finding of one error removes the need to decide whether there are others. However, this is not what the rule requires. Moreover, in State v. 1981 Dodge Ram Van (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 168, 171, 522 N.E.2d 524, 527, we held specifically that it was error to treat assignments of error as moot after having decided a case on another issue.
Since the decision of the court of appeals is clearly opposed to our rulings in Jennings and 1981 Dodge Ram Van, we reverse its judgment and remand the cause to that court for compliance with the requirements of App. R. 12(A).
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.
HOLMES, J., dissents.