Brown v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 1. Where the state personnel board of review reviews the report and recommendation of its referee without examining the record and subsequently adopts the referee's findings of fact but not the referee's recommendation, the board's decision is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and an order of the common pleas court that the appellant's removal be reversed and vacated is proper.

Jones v. Franklin County Sheriff (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 40. A reviewing common pleas court may reverse the state personnel board of review when its decision is inconsistent with the evidentiary record.

Scott v. Reinier (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 289; aff'd Scott v. Renier (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 67. The state personnel board of review may change a removal order to one of suspension only if it considers all of the evidence used by the appointing authority when such authority made its disposition.

State, ex rel. Myers v. Chiaramonte (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 230. On an appeal as a matter of right from a judgment of a Court of Appeals in a mandamus action, the Supreme Court will review the judgment of the Court of Appeals as if the action had been filed originally in the Supreme Court to determine whether the respondent is under a clear legal duty to perform an official act.

In re Termination of Employment of Pratt v. Coller (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 88. A stipulation that appellants performed all of the functions and duties and had all of the responsibilities which are normally assigned to deputy sheriffs in similar counties throughout the state, but that deputies did not under normal circumstances have any administrative responsibility for directing operations of office, did not provide sufficient basis for determining the duties assigned to and performed by the deputies so that it could be determined whether they were members of unclassified civil service and could be discharged by sheriff without review by state personnel board of review.

Henry's Cafe v. Board of Liquor Control (1959), 170 Ohio St. 233. A reviewing court does not have the authority to modify, on its own subjective reasoning, a penalty imposed by an administrative agency.

Riley v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 137; citing Tyler v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (1988), 48 Ohio App.3d 246. Reviewing court may not reverse otherwise lawful administrative order when reasonable minds might reach different conclusions based on same evidence.

State, ex rel. Montague v. Police and Firemen's Disability and Pension Fund (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d 661. Board's determination was not supported by some evidence on record where determination failed to give any explanation of basis for decision, evidence relied upon, or reasoning utilized in reaching decision; appellant was entitled to writ of mandamus ordering trustees to vacate old order and enter new order.

Hawkins v. Marion Correctional Institute (1990), 62 Ohio App.3d 863; cert denied 55 Ohio St.3d 705. An order of the state personnel board of review adopting examiner's recommendation that the employee be removed was not based on highly prejudicial, inadmissible evidence, absent showing in record that examiner relied on knowledge of administration of polygraph tests or results thereof; record of examiner's actions on motion in limine, on motion to strike reference to polygraph examination from removal order and admonishment of counsel showed that he understood limitations on that evidence and requirements that fact finder not consider it.

Marzetti Co. v. Doyle (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 25. Absent affirmative evidence in the record of the administrative proceedings, the judiciary is not authorized to probe the mental processes of the members of an administrative board or commission; thus, the judiciary is foreclosed from investigating the methods by which a decision was reached, the matters considered, the contributing influences or the role played by the work of others.

Marzetti Co. v. Doyle (1987), 37 Ohio App.3d 25. If the findings of an administrative board or commission are supported by some reliable, probative and substantial evidence (albeit disputed evidence) the courts are not free to set them aside even though the courts could have drawn different inferences.

Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68. Where the evidence supports the order of the state personnel board of review, a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for that of the board.

Chapman v. Ohio State Dental Board (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 324. Even in the absence of specific language in R.C. 119.12 conferring the power, a reviewing court has the authority to remand a case to an administrative body where the board's action does not conform with applicable law; such a remand affords the board an opportunity to reconcile its order with the law as defined by the judgment and decision of the court.

Lies v. Veterinary Medical Board (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 204. The institutional decision made by an administrative board may properly be based on written findings of fact prepared by a hearing examiner as long as the findings of fact constitute a basis for making informed, deliberate and independent conclusions about the issues, and the board members need not read the entire transcript of testimony, in the absence of any affirmative demonstration that the findings of fact are in any way defective.

Stone v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services, et al. (June 20, 1996), Franklin App. No. 96APE01-51, unreported, 1996 WL *****. A trial court abuses its discretion in wholly substituting its judgment for that of the State Personnel Board of Review, where the Board's determination is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Washington v. Cuyahoga County Dept. of Human Services (Mar. 10, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 64705, unreported, 1994 WL 78262. A court of common pleas has the power to consider reversal or modification of an order appealed from only where it does not find evidence to support the order; a common pleas court has no authority under R.C. 119.12 to award back pay and benefits of employment to a civil service employee. View SPBR Order

Malloy v. Stark County Board of Commissioners (Dec. 20, 1993), Stark App. No. CA 9308, unreported, 1993 WL 544278. On appeal to the common pleas court from an agency decision, the court must give deference to an administrative agency's interpretation of its own rules and regulations if such interpretation is consistent with statutory law and the plain language of the rule. View SPBR Order

Jellison v. Licking County Board of Commissioners (Dec. 13, 1993), Licking App. No. 93-CA-00036, unreported, 1993 WL 544425. A common pleas court may substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact only to a "very limited extent." (citing University of Cincinnati v. Conrad (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 108, 111.

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

Nichols v. Cuyahoga County Board of MR/DD (Nov. 12, 1992), Cuyahoga App. No. 61111, unreported, 1992 WL 333136. Where a specific issue is not addressed in a previous appeal, the "law of the case" doctrine does not apply; a ruling dismissing an appeal on an issue not previously raised does not consitute a "failure to carry into execution" a reviewing court's previous ruling.

Turner v. Madison Correctional Institution (Aug. 19, 1992), Clark App. No. 2863, unreported, 1992 WL 206647. "Reliable" evidence is dependable, that is, it can be confidently trusted. In order to be reliable, there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence is true. "Probative" evidence is evidence that tends to prove the issue in question; it must be relevant in determining the issue. "Substantial" evidence is evidence with some weight; it must have importance and value.

McCauley v. Noble County Sheriff (Aug. 13, 1992), Noble App. No. 195, unreported, 1992 WL 198079. In order to determine whether the common pleas court abused its discretion by affirming an order of the state personnel board of review without considering a complete record of the proceedings before the board, it must first be determined whether the record was timely filed with the common pleas court.

Pfister v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Apr. 21, 1992), Franklin App. No. 91AP-779, unreported, 1992 WL 82790. Where appellant argues that his appeal to the state personnel board of review was wrongfully dismissed for untimeliness because his appeal was based upon an alleged reduction rather than a reclassification, the common pleas court exceeded its scope of review in determining that there had been no reduction in position; however, if appellant did not allege a reduction in position to the board, the common pleas court did not commit prejudicial error in ruling that appellant's position had not been reduced. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Sapp v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Dec. 31, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-879, unreported, 1991 WL 281449. Where appellant submits only a portion of the applicable collective bargaining agreement, a reviewing court may consider only the limited record before it in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in affirming an agency decision.

Ward v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (July 9, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-222, unreported, 1991 WL 127300. Provided that a reviewing trial court conducts a hearing, either oral or non-oral, and considers the evidence and pleadings properly before it, there has been compliance with the requirements imposed by R.C. 119.12.

Hurst v. Ridgeway (Dec. 20, 1990), Marion App. No. 9-89-7, unreported, 1990 WL 209797. The board's decision is not supported by reliable, probative or substantive evidence where a removal order is disaffirmed on grounds not related to the matter for which appellant was removed; evidence concerning appellant's acceptance of responsibility is neither relevant nor reliable.

Wright v. Butler County Sheriff (Sept. 4, 1990), Butler App. No. CA89-11-154, unreported, 1990 WL 127208. Absent defects in the findings of fact, a decision of the state personnel board of review will not be rendered invalid simply because it did not review the transcript of the hearing before altering the administrative law judge's recommendation.

Sommerville v. Erie County Commissioners (Aug. 31, 1990), Erie App. No. E-89-39, unreported, 1990 WL 125682. Where appellant's conduct is, as a matter of law, a proper reason for removal, the state personnel board of review is limited to a review of whether the facts support a finding that appellant engaged in such conduct.

Jamail v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation (May 31, 1990), Guernsey App. No. 89-CA-45, unreported, 1990 WL 78879. Where the state personnel board of review adopts the administrative law judge's findings of fact but reaches a different conclusion and the conclusion is a logical one that flows from the findings, a trial court may properly affirm the board's order.

Gordon v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Mar. 31, 1988), Franklin App. No. 86AP-1022, unreported, 1988 WL 37094. A decision of the state personnel board of review in a reclassification appeal is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence when the record reflects that the board compared the relevant class specifications with the duties actually performed, and there is substantial evidence in the record to support a finding by the board that certain job-related factors are of paramount importance to the classification.

Freeman v. Ohio Dept. of Human Services (Nov. 30, 1993), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF-03-1825, unreported. It is inappropriate to require the state personnel board of review to explain its decision-making process when rendering its quasi-judicial decisions in appeals coming before it under R.C. Ch. 124. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Davis v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Sept. 18, 1992), Franklin Co., No. 92CVF04-3075, unreported. Where the common pleas court determines that a given violation is supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and the penalty imposed is within the scope of authority granted to the agency, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency and modify the penalty imposed. View Common Pleas Decision

Fry v. Deepwood Center, Lake County Board of MR/DD (Aug. 13, 1992), Lake Co., No. 92-CV000-259, unreported. Identification of employee by a client as the person who hid the client's toys combined with testimony that the employee had access to the client at a specific time, was heard to joke with the client about not needing the toys and had hidden the toys in the past, is sufficient to constitute "reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in support of a finding of an administrative agency" upon which a reviewing court may affirm the conclusions of the Board, as required by R.C. 119.12. View Common Pleas Decision

Combs v. Holmes County Sheriff (July 31, 1992), Tuscarawas Co., No. 91AA-070-314, unreported. Although the reviewing court would have reached a different result under the circumstances presented to it, the court must uphold an order of the state personnel board of review if it is supported by the evidence and is in accordance with law. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Scarbro v. Pickaway County Board of Health (Apr. 5, 1991), Pickaway Co., No. 90-CI-000127, unreported. Pursuant to O.A.C. 124-7-20, all settlement agreements must be written and signed by all of the affected parties in order to constitute a valid agreement; absent a valid settlement agreement, the decision of the state personnel board of review to dismiss an appeal pursuant to its having been settled is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and is not in accordance with the law. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Arthurs v. Tuscarawas County Engineer (Feb. 1987), Tuscarawas Co., No. 86-CVO80272, unreported. In a mandamus action the reviewing court will not weigh the evidence if there is "some evidence" to sustain the action taken by the administrative agency. View Common Pleas Decision

Miglieri v. Lee (1958), 16 Ill. App.2d 545. The findings of an administrative agency may be set aside only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence.