COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 67455 CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION, : et al. : : Plaintiff-appellees : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION URS COMPANY, INC. : : Defendant-appellant : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT : APRIL 6, 1995 OF DECISION : CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas : Case No. CV-113147 JUDGMENT : DISMISSED DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellees: For defendant-appellant: CLEVELAND BOARD OF EDUCATION SHARON A. RIEGEL, ESQ. LAW DEPARTMENT G. TODD DOWNS, ESQ. 1380 East 6th Street MARK E. STAIB, ESQ. Cleveland, OH 44114 ROYCE R. REMINGTON, ESQ. Hahn, Loeser & Parks STEPHEN D. WALTERS, ESQ. 3300 BP America Bldg. Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley 200 Public Square & Howley Cleveland, OH 44114 2500 Terminal Tower Cleveland, OH 44113-2241 - 2 - PATTON, C.J. Appellant URS Company, Inc. appeals from a trial court order granting appellee Dow Chemical Company's motion to dismiss URS's cross-claims against Dow Chemical. Dow Chemical cross-appeals from trial court's decision to certify no just reason for delay pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B). The issues on appeal arose from litigation involving the Cleveland Board of Education and those companies responsible for designing and constructing the Cleveland School of Science. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss this appeal. The underlying action concerned a suit brought by the Cleve- land Board of Education against URS, Dow and other companies involved in the design and construction of the main classroon building and planetarium dome of the Cleveland School of Science. The board of education sought damages relating to structural defects which developed in the main classroom building and plane- tarium dome. As relevant to this appeal, URS cross-claimed against Dow Chemical for indeminification or contribution, breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation. In December 1990, one of the defendants, CNA Insurance Co., appealed from an order of the trial court in case no. 60994. We granted URS's motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of a final appealable order. Subsequently, the board of education entered into settlement agreements with all of the defendants. We again dismissed an appeal, this time by URS, for lack of a final appeal- able order since the settlement agreements between some of the - 3 - defendants and the board of education were not memorialized in journal entries. See Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. URS Company, Inc. (Feb. 17, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64496, unreported. On July 5, 1994, we reinstated the appeal upon URS's submission of a journal entry from the trial court showing no just reason for delay. We heard the appeal on the merits and affirmed in part and reversed in part. See Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. URS Company, Inc. (Sept. 22, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64496, unreported. At about the same time it filed its motion to reinstate appeal no. 64496, URS filed the notice of appeal in this case, no. 67455. URS states it filed the second notice of appeal in order to protect its rights and admits that except for the cross-appeal, the appeals nos. 64496 and 67455 are identical. This appeal is dismissed for the reason that all issues raised herein have been fully addressed in our journal entry in Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. URS Company, Inc. (Sept. 22, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64496, unreported. The doctrine of the law of the case pro- vides that a decision of a reviewing court remains the law for that case as to all relevant legal questions in subsequent proceedings both at trial and appellate levels unless that rule of practice achieves an unjust result. Weir v. Kebe (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 53; N. Olmsted v. Eliza Jennings, Inc. (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 173. - 4 - Since this appeal raises the identical facts and issues as were 1 involved in case no. 64496, the law of the case applies. Appeal dismissed. 1 In this appeal, Dow Chemical does raise an issue not raised in the previous appeals: whether the trial court abused its discretion by certifying no just reason for delay nearly four years after it had granted Dow Chemical's motion for summary judgment. Although we did not expressly address the issue in our journal entry in case no. 64496, we impliedly found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by providing the Civ.R. 54(B) certification since such a finding would have been a necessary prerequisite to ruling on the merits of the appeal. Consequent- ly, we find our prior journal entry sufficiently addressed the issues raised by Dow Chemical's cross-appeal and it, too, is subject to the doctrine of the law of the case. - 5 - It is, therefore, considered that said appellees recover of said appellant the costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. DAVID T. MATIA, J., DONALD C. NUGENT, J., CONCUR CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN T. PATTON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .