Nuspl v. City of Akron (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 511. Where neither the local civil service rules nor state law prohibits an appeal from the decision of a civil service commission declaring a person ineligible to take a civil service examination, such decision may be appealed to the court of common pleas pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.

Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services v. State Employment Relations Board (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 48. State Office of Collective Bargaining is not a "person" for purposes of statute allowing appeal by person aggrieved by administrative agency decision.

Hamilton County Board of MR/DD v. Professionals Guild of Ohio (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 147. A political subdivision of the state is a "person" entitled to appeal an adverse decision of an administrative agency; county governmental units may be considered a "party" within the meaning of R.C. 119.01(G) and may appeal a final order of an agency under that section.

Sutherland-Wagner v. Brook Park Civil Service Commission (1987), 32 Ohio St.3d 323. R.C. 124.34 does not give the state personnel board of review jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a classified civil servant employed by a municipality; where the civil service commission of a municipality upholds the suspension of a classified employee for disciplinary reasons, that decision may be appealed to the court of common pleas pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.

Sun Refining & Marketing Company v. Brennan (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 306. The fifteen-day appeal period in R.C. 119.12 does not commence to run until the agency whose order is being appealed fully complies with the procedural requirements set forth in R.C. 119.09.

Harris v. Lewis (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 577. A classified employee's pay may not be reduced for any reason other than those listed in R.C. 124.34; only disciplinary reductions can be appealed to the courts, and such appeal must be brought in the county of the employee's residence.

McCruter v. Bureau of Employment Services (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277. Where a statute confers a right of appeal, the appeal can only be perfected in the manner prescribed by that statute.

State, ex rel. Osborn v. Jackson (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 41. Director of state department of transportation does not have right of appeal to court of common pleas from order of the state personnel board of review disaffirming Director's order laying off employee; State of Ohio is not "party adversely affected" within meaning of provision of administrative procedure act allowing appeal to common pleas court.

In re Termination of Employment of Pratt v. Moore (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 107. A party adversely affected by an order of the state personnel board of review may appeal the order of the board to the court of common pleas of the county in which the affected employee resides, and may, in that court, raise the issue of the board's jurisdiction to issue the order.

Collins v. Hamilton County Department of Human Services (March 21, 2002), Franklin App. No. 01AP-1194, 2002-Ohio-1325. R.C. 124.34 provides that an employee who is removed may appeal to the SPBR and may appeal the SPBR's decision to the court of common pleas of the county in which the employee resides. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Lipscomb v. London Correctional Institute (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 245, cert denied 71 Ohio St.3d 1436. Requirement under statute governing appeals of administrative decisions to court of common pleas that appellant file deposit with agency based upon anticipated cost of preparation of administrative transcript does not violate due process guarantees; requirement is not jurisdictional, and court may allow late filing of deposit or relieve indigent litigant from requirement.

Lipscomb v. London Correctional Institute (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 245, cert denied 71 Ohio St.3d 1436. Former employee's appeal of trial court's dismissal of his appeal of decision of the state personnel board of review was timely, even though notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after two entries dismissing appeal; neither entry contained language required by rule governing entry of judgment, and clerk of trial court did not give notice to employee of entry of judgment as required by rule.

Lipscomb v. London Correctional Institute (1994), 96 Ohio App.3d 245, cert denied 71 Ohio St.3d 1436. Trial court could not dismiss former employee's appeal of decision of the state personnel board of review affirming his dismissal from employment at correctional facility for failure to file deposit with board based upon anticipated cost of preparation of transcript at time of filing of notice of appeal without first determining employee's motion for leave to make deposit later by tender that was made only six days after time limit for filing administrative record; requirement is not jurisdictional.

Collyer v. Broadview Developmental Center (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 99. Because the state personnel board of review is an agency of the state and not an agency of a political subdivision, no appeal can be asserted pursuant to R.C. 2506.01. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Collyer v. Broadview Developmental Center (1991), 74 Ohio App.3d 99. Neither the state, a state agency, nor its director may assert an appeal pursuant to R.C. 119.01(G), as they are not a "party" within the meaning of that section. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Wickliffe Firefighters Association v. Local 1536 City of Wickliffe (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 681. Firefighters union, as appellant, had responsibility to request civil service commission to transmit transcript for administrative appeal from commission to trial court.

Gingo v. Ohio State Medical Board (1989), 56 Ohio App.3d 111; cert denied 44 Ohio St.3d 715. The notice of appeal required to be filed with a state agency in an appeal of an adjudication order pursuant to R.C. 119.12 is presumptively timely delivered when it is shown to have been mailed within sufficient time for it to have arrived at the agency before the fifteen-day time limit.

Gingo v. Ohio State Medical Board (1989), 56 Ohio App.3d 111. The party contesting the timeliness of an R.C. 119.12 notice of appeal has the burden of proof of rebutting the presumption resulting from the timely mailing of the notice; an administrative agency may not overcome this presumption by merely introducing the agency's time-stamped date of reception of the notice of appeal.

Stokes v. Sneed (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 207. R.C. 124.34 does not afford a right of appeal to the court of common pleas from an order of the state personnel board of review modifying a civil service employee's reduction in position to a suspension in the absence of some demonstration that the reduction in position also involved a reduction in pay (Scott v. Renier (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 67 distinguished).

Rivers v. Quirk (1984), 30 Ohio App.3d 35. R.C. 124.34 is the exclusive route of appeal of an order taking away a city policeman's compensatory time; a direct appeal to the court of common pleas under R.C. 2506.01 is not available.

Ludwig v. Willoughby-Eastlake City School District Board of Education (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 229. Appeals by laid-off classified employees in the "state service" from orders of the state personnel board of review are to be made to the court of common pleas of Franklin County, and appeals by laid-off classified employees of a municipal civil service commission are to be made to the court of common pleas of the county in which the employee resides.

Singh v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (1982), 7 Ohio App.3d 269. R.C. 124.56 makes no provision for the rights of a complainant so far as an investigation for violation of R.C. Ch. 124. is concerned, or of the standing of a complainant for appeal in the event that he is dissatisfied with the results of the investigation.

In re Job Abolishment of Jenkins (1963) 120 Ohio App. 385. Appointing authority was not "party" whose interests were subject of adjudication by agency within statute authorizing parties adversely affected by order of agency to appeal to Court of Common Pleas, and appointing authority thus was not authorized to appeal to that court from decision of the state personnel board of review disaffirming appointing authority's abolition of position.

Minarik v. Board of Review, Dept. of State Personnel (1962), 118 Ohio App.71. Failure of papers issued in proceeding for review of discharge of employee and allegedly forwarded by State Personnel Board of Review to include copy of any notice of appeal, any certificate of statement from Board that it was forwarding all original papers, any certificate of Board giving any authenticity to transcript or any copy or the original notice of appeal required dismissal of appeal.

Brunnett v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Aug. 1, 1996), Franklin App. No. 96APE02-133, unreported, 1996 WL 435028. The language of R.C. 119.12, which allows an appeal by any party adversely affected by an order of an agency, is sufficiently broad to encompass an appeal of an appointing authority's disciplinary suspension of more than three days. Overruling Ottenbacher v. Weir (May 12, 1981), Franklin App. No. 81AP-12, unreported; Johnson v. Ohio Dept. of Liquor Control (June 24, 1982), Franklin App. No. 82AP-208, unreported; Chalfant v. Cambridge Mental Health and Devl. Ctr. (June 11, 1981), Franklin App. No. 81AP-81, unreported; and Carmichael v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Serv. (Aug. 6, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-82, unreported. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order (1995 Appeal) | View SPBR Order (1994 Appeal)

Drolshagen v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (June 13, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APE11-1410, unreported, 1996 WL 325648. Failure to file a copy of a notice of appeal with the court within fifteen days, pursuant to R.C. 119.12, constitutes a jurisdictional defect; such defect deprives the common pleas court of jurisdiction to consider the merits of the filing.

Durkin v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Mar. 29, 1996), Mahoning App. No. 95CA60, unreported, 1996 WL 148604. A court of common pleas has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the state personnel board of review regarding a reduction in position that was not the result of discipline or did not result in the loss of pay. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Lipscomb v. London Correctional Institute (Aug. 2, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF03-1570, unreported; dismissed (Jan. 30, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APE09-1134, unreported. Appellant's failure to comply with court-imposed deadlines may result in the court's dismissal of appellant's case. View Court of Appeals Decision

Armitage v. Miami University (1995), 103 Ohio App. 3d 461. A state agency may not appeal a decision of the state personnel board of review disaffirming an involuntary disability separation under R.C. 124.34 because an involuntary disability separation is not a removal or reduction in pay imposed for disciplinary reasons.

Hunter v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Aug. 5, 1994), Meigs App. No. 93-CA-521, unreported, 1994 WL 419622. Non-compliance with the R.C. 119.12 requirement that a security deposit accompany a notice of appeal denies the common pleas court jurisdiction over an administrative agency appeal; the security deposit requirement is a jurisdictional requirement.

Clark County Common Pleas Court v. Judge Richard E. Parrott (July 1, 1994), Clark App. No. 94-CA-0009, unreported. Where appellant filed an appeal of an order of the state personnel board of review in the court of common pleas of two different counties, the tribunal whose power was first invoked acquired exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Hayes v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners (June 1, 1994), Montgomery App No. 14381, unreported, 1994 WL 285054. R.C. 119.12 does not create an exemption to R.C. Ch. 2505; failure to file the copy of the appeal required by R.C. 119.12, or to do so timely, may be grounds for action by common pleas court but does not affect the validity of the appeal, which is established, per R.C. 2505.04, by the timely filing of the notice of appeal with the agency. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision

Hayes v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners (June 1, 1994), Montgomery App. No. 14381, unreported, 1994 WL 285054. Pursuant to R.C. 119.12, the only requirement to invoke the jurisdiction of the common pleas court is the timely filing of a notice of appeal with the agency concerned. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision

Freeman v. Ohio Dept. of Human Services (May 12, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APE-12-1704, unreported, 1994 WL 183538. A trial court's order vacating its prior discovery order is not a final appealable order: it does not determine the action or prevent a judgment, as appellant may still obtain all the relief it sought on filing its notice of appeal.

Noel v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Dec. 13, 1993), Scioto App. No. 2140, unreported, 1993 WL 524999. The security deposit required by R.C. 119.12 is a jurisdictional requirement; when an appellant has failed to file the R.C. 119.12 security deposit with the notice of appeal, the appellant has failed to substantially comply with the statute and fails to perfect his appeal. View Court of Appeals Decision

Carmichael v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (Aug. 6, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-82, unreported, 1992 WL 193706. R.C. 119.12 does not provide for an appeal to the common pleas court from a thirty-day suspension. View Court of Appeals Decision

Combs v. Holmes County Sheriff (May 29, 1992), Tuscarawas App. No. 91AP120096, unreported, 1992 WL 1271332. Appellant may not correct a timely filing in the wrong court by asserting an untimely cross-appeal to the proper court; in order for the proper court to have jurisdiction over the appeal, it must be timely filed in the proper court. View SPBR Order

Combs v. Holmes County Sheriff (May 29, 1992), Tuscarawas App. No. 91AP120096, unreported, 1992 WL 1271332. For a court of common pleas to have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the state personnel board of review, appelland must file his notice of appeal not only with the board, but also with the court of common pleas within fifteen days after the mailing of the notice of the board's order. View SPBR Order

Russell v. State Personnel Board of Review (Sept. 23, 1991), Butler App. No. CA90-09-197, unreported, 1991 WL 188139. Where an employee is found to be in the unclassified civil service and the state personnel board of review subsequently dismisses his appeal to the board for lack of jurisdiction, the proper party to be named in an appeal of the board's dismissal is the employee's appointing authority.

Ballinger v. State of Ohio (Dec. 17, 1990), Warren App. No. CA90-01-004, unreported, 1990 WL 208865. R.C. 119.12 requires a notice of appeal to be filed with the agency from which the appeal is taken within fifteen days after the mailing of the agency's order; failure to comply with the mandatory time limit set by the legislature in appealing from an agency's order renders the appellate tribunal without jurisdiction to hear the appeal. View Court of Appeals Decision

Casalicchio v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (June 28, 1990), Cuyahoga App. No. 57200, unreported, 1990 WL 88716. A classified civil servant's remedy to appeal his discharge pursuant to R.C. Ch. 124. is by administrative appeal to the state personnel board of review; the statutory remedy is exclusive and appellant may not bring an independent action contrary to the statutory procedures.

State, ex rel. Baker v. Giles (Oct. 10, 1978), Franklin App. No. 78AP-440, unreported. Delivery of notice of appeal to attorney or the agency whose order is appealed from is sufficient notice to the non-party appointing authority.

Saxour v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction (Aug. 29, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 96CVF07-5454, unreported. A court of common pleas has no authority to transfer an appeal pursuant to Ohio Civ. R. 3 when the court has no jurisdiction over the matter; a classified employee must appeal an order of the State Personnel Board of Review affirming her removal for disciplinary reasons to the county of the employee's residence. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Kirk v. Hamilton County Recorder (Aug. 1, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 96CVF05-3336, unreported. Filing a timely notice of appeal of an agency action with the common pleas court is jurisdictional; failure to file a notice of appeal with the court within the fifteen day limit set forth in R.C. 119.12 is a jurisdictional defect. View Common Pleas Decision

Marks v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities (Feb. 28, 1996), Wayne Co., No. 95-CV-0257, unreported. Appeals of administrative decisions based on non-disciplinary reasons may be filed only in the common pleas court of Franklin County. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Selekman v. Board of Mahoning County Commissioners (Apr. 11, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CV11-8092, unreported. An appeal attacking the jurisdiction of the state personnel board of review must be pursued in the appellant's county of residence. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Schlupe v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Feb. 24, 1995), Summit Co., Nos. CV89-12-3860, CV90-07-2224, unreported. A dismissal by the state personnel board of review for mootness does not lie as an appealable issue. View Common Pleas Decision

Armitage v. Miami University (Nov. 28, 1994), Butler Co., No. CV94-10-1729, unreported. R.C. 119.12 allows a state agency to appeal a decision of the state personnel board of review disaffirming an involuntary disability separation in Franklin County, but not in the employee's county of residence.

Chavis v. Ohio Public Works Commission (Mar. 11, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93-CVF-12-8638, unreported. R.C. 124.56 does not provide a right of appeal from the results of an investigation by the state personnel board of review. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Baroni v. Western Reserve Psychiatric Hospital (Dec. 28, 1993), Portage Co., No. 92-CV-0852, unreported. Where appellant substitutes a party as appellee but fails to notify appellee of its substitution, appellant has satisfied the requirements of R.C. 119.12 if appellee is substantially informed of the appeal and the delay in notice does not prejudice appellee. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Spindler v. State Personnel Board of Review (Nov. 26, 1991), Medina Co., No. 55594, unreported. A notice of appeal that fails to state the grounds for the appeal does not comply with R.C. 119.12 and is not properly perfected; because R.C. 119.12 does not grant any right to amend a notice of appeal, an appeal which fails to state the grounds for the appeal must be dismissed. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order