Changes

The boundaries of what constitutes state action when the actor is private but serving a public functiokn are murky.  In ''Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Ath. Ass'n'', 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court found the existence of state action because "there is such a 'close nexus between the State and the challenged action' that seemingly private behavior 'may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.'"  Similarly, the Ohio Supreme Court found state action in ''State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp.'', 97 Ohio St. 3d 504, 507 (2002), "when the state provides significant encouragement for the activity" (citing ''Brentwood Acad''., 531 U.S. at 296).

The boundaries of what constitutes state action when the actor is private but serving a public functiokn are murky.  In ''Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Ath. Ass'n'', 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001), the U.S. Supreme Court found the existence of state action because "there is such a 'close nexus between the State and the challenged action' that seemingly private behavior 'may be fairly treated as that of the State itself.'"  Similarly, the Ohio Supreme Court found state action in ''State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp.'', 97 Ohio St. 3d 504, 507 (2002), "when the state provides significant encouragement for the activity" (citing ''Brentwood Acad''., 531 U.S. at 296).