Friedman v. Johnson, 84-922
| Citation | 480 N.E.2d 82,18 Ohio St.3d 85,18 OBR 122 |
| Decision Date | 03 July 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-922,84-922 |
| Parties | , 18 O.B.R. 122 FRIEDMAN et al., Appellees, v. JOHNSON, Director, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Elise L. Farrell, Louise McKinney and Carolyn L. Carter, Cleveland, for appellees.
Stege, Delbaum & Hickman Co., L.P.A., and Franklin J. Hickman, Cleveland, urging affirmance of amicus curiae Association for Retarded Citizens.
Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., David E. Northrop and Shirley A. Cochran, Columbus, for appellants.
The issue presented in this appeal is whether the trial court below has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Since we find that the adjudication of this complaint is within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the Court of Claims, we must reverse the court of appeals and dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction.
In 1975, the General Assembly enacted R.C. Chapter 2743, known as the Court of Claims Act. As is well-documented, the Act waived the immunity of the state from suit, and created a Court of Claims which was to have exclusive, original jurisdiction over all suits permitted by the Act. See R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) and 2743.03(A). R.C. 2743.02(A)(1) also states, in pertinent part, that " * * * [t]o the extent that the state has previously consented to be sued, this chapter has no applicability."
Thus, the Court of Claims was not to have exclusive, original jurisdiction over claims from which the state was not immune prior to the effective date of the Act. These suits could also be filed in courts that would have jurisdiction had the defendant been a private party. See, e.g., Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm. (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 296 N.E.2d 261, .
In the present case appellees sought injunctive, declaratory, and other necessary and proper relief. Further, the court of appeals remanded the cause for determination of damages. We must determine whether the court of common pleas has concurrent jurisdiction over this case, or whether the Court of Claims has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction.
To begin, it is beyond dispute that this is a suit against the state. R.C. 2743.01(A) defines "state" as including its "agencies"; DMRDD is a state agency. Although the named defendants are certain DMRDD officials, the conduct in question concerns agency policy. See Scot Lad Foods v. Secy. of State (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 1, 7, 418 N.E.2d 1368, ; State, ex rel. Williams, v. Glander (1947), 148 Ohio St. 188, 193, 74 N.E.2d 82, .
It is also clear that had appellees sued solely for declaratory relief the court of common pleas would have jurisdiction. The state had consented to declaratory judgment suits prior to 1975. See, e.g., Burger Brewing Co., supra; American Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Jones (1949), 152 Ohio St. 287, 89 N.E.2d 301, . However, appellees attached a prayer for injunctive relief as well and, further, the cause has been remanded for a determination of damages. Standing alone, each of the latter two requests is within the exclusive, original jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.
In Boggs v. State (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 15, 17, 455 N.E.2d 1286, this court recently stated with regard to a money damages suit against the state that:
"Inasmuch as this cause of action involves a civil suit for money damages against the state, the Court of Claims has original, exclusive jurisdiction."
As to injunctive relief, in Brownfield v. State (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 282, 407 N.E.2d 1365, a case similar to the one at bar, the state was named as a defendant in a common pleas court action for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court stated at 283-284, 407 N.E.2d 1365:
(Footnotes omitted.)
Thus, the state was not made subject to either injunctive or declaratory relief. The court did not expound upon its reasoning for this "in toto" dismissal; the opportunity to do so has arisen with this case.
A major purpose of the Court of Claims Act was to centralize the filing and adjudication of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leaman v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Retardation & Development Disabilities
...the Department of Mental Retardation itself, again without any necessity of suing in the Court of Claims. Friedman v. Johnson, 18 Ohio St.3d 85, 87, 480 N.E.2d 82, 84 (1985); Racing Guild of Ohio v. Ohio State Racing Commission, 28 Ohio St.3d 317, 503 N.E.2d 1025 (1986), 1st If in the case ......
-
Cooperman v. University Surgical Associates, Inc.
...not implicate state policy in any way. In this regard, the instant action is completely distinguishable from Friedman v. Johnson (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 85, 18 OBR 122, 480 N.E.2d 82. The complaint in Friedman was specifically held to be one against the state because the conduct at issue conc......
-
Mullins v. Birchfield
...filed against other prison officers. The trial court dismissed Mullins's complaint without prejudice, citing Friedman v. Johnson (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 85, 18 OBR 122, 480 N.E.2d 82, which held that an action for damages against the sovereign state of Ohio and its agencies and officers may n......
-
Tiemann v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 97API10-1418
...jurisdiction over claims from which the state was not immune prior to the effective date of the Act." Friedman v. Johnson (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 85, 86, 18 OBR 122, 123, 480 N.E.2d 82, 83. Claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were permitted against state agencies prior to the enactme......
-
A Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words: A Look at Ohio's Take on Involuntary Takings
...proposition, however, it appears to be well-settled law in Ohio 56 OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2743.02(A)(1) (West 2010); Friedman v. Johnson, 480 N.E.2d 82, 83 (Ohio 1985). 57 OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2743.03(A)(1). 58 Manning, 577 N.E.2d at 654. 59 Friedman, 480 N.E.2d at 84. 60 Id. 61 See discuss......