56 Ohio App. 2d 1 - In Re Stanley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The issue before us is whether the right to appeal— that is, the nature of the case as one of removal or reduction in pay for disciplinary reasons — is determined by the initial action of the appointing authority or by the action of the civil service commission upon appeal to it. The trial court apparently found that the nature of the case is determined by the order of the civil service commission, rath er than by the order of the appointing authority, relying upon Anderson v. Minter (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 207 . ‘■'The Anderson case has no application herein, inasmuch as the original action by the appointing authority was a suspension for a period of five days or less, and the Supreme Court held that, under such circumstances, the ■employee has no right of appeal to the state personnel hoard of review or municipal civil service commission in accordance with the express terms of R. C. 143.27 (now E. C. 124.34). “The determination that the character of a case— whether it involves removal or concerns reduction — from the action of the appointing authority is mandated by that portion of R. G. 124.34 which confers a right of appeal upon the appointing authority, as well as the employee, in cases of removal or reduction in pay for disciplinary reasons. ■ “Otherwise, there could never be an effective appeal by an appointing authority, since it is only when the action of the civil service commission is either to reverse or modify the action,of the appointing authority, that such a/n”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scott v. Reinier

2. ““Every final order, adjudication, or decision of any officer, tribunal, authority, board, bureau, commission, department or other division of any political subdivision of the state may be reviewed by the common pleas court of the county in which the principal office of the political subdivision is located, as provided in sections 2505.01 to 2505.45, inclusive, of the Revised Code, and as such procedure is modified by sections 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, of the Revised Code. “The appeal provided in sections 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, of the Revised Code is in addition to any other remedy of appeal provided by law. “A ‘final order, adjudication, or decision’ does not include any order from which an appeal is granted by rule, ordinance, or statute to a higher administrative authority and a right to a hearing on such appeal is provided; any order which does not constitute a determination of the rights, duties, privileges, benefits, or legal relationships of a specified person; nor any order issued preliminary to or as a result of a criminal proceeding.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 11 Ohio App. 3d 273 - Moore v. City of Cleveland Civil Service Commission

3. ““Although the appeals to the Board hére originally involved removal from employment the Board in its decision, except as to five persons, modified each order of removal to an order of 90 day suspension starting on the ■affective date of the removal order with reinstatement to the employee’s position on the day following the completion of the suspension. The order of modification thus became constructively and by operation of law the order of the appointing authority and the only order remaining in the respective case of the affected employee. Such orders of suspension not constituting ‘cases of removal or reduction in pay for disciplinary reasons’ there existed no authority either under the constitution or under statute for a suspended employee to appeal the decision of the board to the court of common pleas of the county of his residence and that court of common pleas was, therefore, without jurisdiction to entertain his appeal although in each of these appeals the court of common pleas proceeded to act.” (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Scott v. Reinier