Ohio State Board of Pharmacy v. Frantz (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 143. The mandatory language of R.C. 119.09 pertains to securing attendance of witnesses and production of books, records, or papers at the request of a party for the purpose of conducting an adjudication hearing; it does not provide for prehearing discovery depositions by a party to an adjudication hearing.

Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 20. Application for rehearing or reconsideration of an administrative ruling is not itself a new proceeding but it merely another step in the proceeding in which the initial determination was made.

State, ex rel. Kilburn v. Guard (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 21; U.S. cert denied 464 U.S. 893. A claim to a name hearing and for damages is made upon a showing of a deprivation of liberty and/or property; absent a finding of a property right in continued employment, a name clearing hearing is required only if the employer creates and disseminates false and defamatory impression about the employee in connection with his termination so as to infringe on his right to liberty.

Estate of Kirby v. Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d. 397; cert denied 64 Ohio St.3d 1416. R.C. 119.092[119.02][F] specifically bars applications for attorney's fees when the actions involve hearings by the state personnel board of review under R.C. 124.03 and employees prevailing in appeals pursuant to R.C. 124.03 are not entitled to attorney's fees; however, because R.C. 119.02(F) does not address hearings under R.C. 124.34, the legislature must have intended that employees prevailing in appeals under R.C. 124.34 are entitled to such an award. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Veney v. Massillon Psychiatric Center (1991), 66 Ohio App.3d 665. Revocation of appointment of state employee as a nonclassified service employee, and his return to prior position within classified service, was a "revocation of appointment" which did not require hearing or other procedures applicable to removal of employee.

In re Appeal of Gardner (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 99. The provision of R.C. 124.34 requiring a hearing within thirty days of an employee's timely appeal of an order of reduction, suspension or removal is mandatory, not merely directory; however, the failure of the state personnel board of review to hold a hearing within such time, although error, does not deprive the board of jurisdiction to proceed to hold the hearing.

Dawson v. Udelsen (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 141. In order for a new motion seeking the same result as a motion previously filed and ruled upon to be proper, there must be new facts which could not have been known to appellant's counsel at the time of the previous motion and new grounds for relief.

Erie Care Center, Inc. v. Ackerman (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 102. In conducting an adjudication hearing as required by R.C. 119.01 to 119.13, an administrative agency is not required to formulate its own findings of fact but rather such agency must approve, modify or disapprove the recommendations of the referee or examiner.

Adams v. Giles (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 351. The mailing of the administrator's decision on reconsideration to an unemployment compensation claimant raises a rebuttable presumption that the claimant was in fact duly notified.

Hayes v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners (Sept. 22, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 15086, unreported, 1995 WL 558801. Where appellant was removed for failing to truthfully answer questions on her employment application, the later expungement of her felony conviction does not affect the basis of her termination; the removal is based on dishonesty, not conviction of a crime.

Richards v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Mar. 31, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APE-08-1187, unreported; cert denied (1995) 73 Ohio St.3d 1426. Where appellant brings an appeal pursuant to R.C. 119.12 and makes no claim under 42 U.S.C.A. 1988, the court makes no finding that appellee violated any federal law, and appellant is, therefore, not entitled to any federal remedies, appellant may not recover attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.A. 1988. View Court of Appeals Decision

Bauer v. Hamilton County Board of MR/DD (July 2, 1993), Hamilton App. No. C-920426, unreported. The state personnel board of review's order to disaffirm a removal on the grounds that appellee failed to appear at record hearing, where the board provided notice to appellee's original counsel of record but not to any subsequent counsel of record, is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Kemp v. Montville Plastics & Rubber, Inc. (Feb. 9, 1990), Geauga App. No. 89-G-1503, unreported, 1990 WL 10951. Once a motion has been ruled upon by a judge of competent jurisdiction, a new motion, urging the same relief upon the same facts is not proper (citing Brick Processors, Inc. v. Culbertson (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 478).

State, ex rel. Freeman v. State Personnel Board of Review (Aug. 11, 1987), Franklin App. No. 86AP-577, unreported, 1987 WL 15671. Where the state personnel board of review failed to conduct hearings in an appeal until after appellant filed a complaint seeking to compel the board to do so, and after an informal hearing by the court, the appellant is entitled to have his court costs assessed against the board. View Court of Appeals Decision

Foos v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (Aug. 17, 1978), Franklin App. No. 78AP-64, unreported. An affidavit submitted by appellee that shows he had not been notified of a hearing constitutes sufficient support for the trial court's finding that appellee had not been sufficiently notified of the hearing.

Voss v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Aug. 7, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF08-5378, unreported. Where a party to an appeal before the State Personnel Board of Review fails to appear at a scheduled status conference, fails to notify the board of his reasons for failing to appear or to file written objections setting forth his situation, the board may dismiss the appeal pursuant to O.A.C. 124-11-13. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

McIlwain v. Ferguson (May 8, 1995), Butler Co., No. CV92-09-1699, unreported. The state personnel board of review must confine its inquiry upon remand to the specific issues outlined by the remanding court. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order (Remand) | View Common Pleas Decision (Remanding to SPBR) | View SPBR Order

Adamaszek v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Jan. 31, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF-08-6104, unreported. The state personnel board of review may, pursuant to O.A.C. 124-9-05(C), dismiss an appeal for failure to timely respond to a procedural order of the board. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Edison v. Franklin County Children Services Board (July 20, 1992), Franklin Co., No. 91CVF-07-5921, unreported. The state personnel board of review may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with a court-ordered deadline and a second procedural deadline. <