|
|
Summers v. Village of Highland Hills12/12/2002
Supreme Court in State ex rel. Village of Chagrin Falls, supra.
. The majority's fundamental mistake is treating appeals from administrative agencies like all other appeals. There is much confusion about such appeals to common pleas court because of their hybrid nature. Workers' compensation cases in the common pleas court, for example, are called appeals and a notice of appeal must be filed; however, these cases receive a de novo trial in common pleas court. In other appeals from administrative tribunals, such as a personnel board of review, the statute provides the common pleas court with a range of authority depending upon what occurred at the lower tribunal. When the lower tribunal observes fundamental rights, such as the right to counsel, the right to present evidence and to cross examine witnesses, and the right to require testimony be taken under oath and when all the pertinent evidence is presented, then the common pleas court is limited to appellate review.
. In the case at bar, however, it was clear from the beginning that the common pleas court was going to function more like a trial court than an appellate court. Because the testimony before the Board was not under oath and additional evidence to address back pay was necessary, the record did not meet the fundamental criteria of R.C. 2506. Under these circumstances, the statute clearly invests the common pleas court with the responsibilities of a trial court.
. Failing to distinguish between general appeals and administrative appeals, the majority mistakenly relies upon the cases of New York Central RR Co. v. Francis (1924), 109 Ohio St. 481, 143 N.E. 187, and State ex rel Heck v. Kessler (1995) 72 Ohio St.3d 98. Neither case involved an administrative appeal. The New York Central case involved a remand from the appellate court to the lower court, and Heck was a criminal matter in which the state sought a writ from the court of appeals to force the trial judge to vacate a prior decision.
. The majority ignores, moreover, this court's precedent in The Standard Oil Co. v. Vales (Apr. 26, 1979), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 38972, 38344, 1979 Ohio App. LEXIS 10046. Procedurally, Vales is very similar to the case at bar. Vales was an administrative appeal filed in the common pleas court. This court held that a trial court retains jurisdiction in an administrative appeal to enforce its own previous orders.
. In Vales, a property owner was denied special use permits by the city's planning commission. The property owner also had applied for variances from the city's board of zoning appeals, which never ruled on the request. Pursuant to R.C. 2506, the property owner appealed to the trial court, which reversed and ordered the city to issue the permits. The city appealed the trial court's judgment to this court which, among other things, remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions for it to remand the case ba
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Show All Case Laws Ohio PEO
|