King, In re

Decision Date16 April 1980
Docket NumberNo. 79-1510,79-1510
Citation403 N.E.2d 200,62 Ohio St.2d 87
Parties, 16 O.O.3d 73 In re Claim of KING.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Appellee, Michael E. King, was terminated from his employment with Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. in March 1977. The administrator of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, appellant, both initially and on reconsideration, denied appellee's application for unemployment compensation benefits, since appellee was found to have been discharged for just cause within R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a). A referee affirmed the denial of benefits and the Board of Review of the bureau disallowed an application for further appeal.

Appellee appealed the board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Jackson County. Appellee filed a copy of his notice of appeal with that court, with the Board of Review, and with Goodyear. Appellee did not file a copy of the notice of appeal with the appellant. Appellee named only himself as a party to the appeal, and failed to name Goodyear and the appellant as parties. The trial court reversed the decision of the Board of Review and held appellee to be entitled to benefits.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and finding its judgment to be in conflict with the determination of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County in Parks v. Bd. of Review (December 26, 1978, Nos. 77AP-930 and 77AP-931), unreported, certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination.

Douthett & Ochsenbein and Marshall B. Douthett, Jackson, for appellee.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Marquette D. Evans, Columbus, for appellant.

PER CURIAM.

The issue before this court is whether the requirement of R.C. 4141.28(O) that a party appealing to the Court of Common Pleas timely filed a copy of his notice of appeal with all interested parties is a mandatory and jurisdictional requirement. R.C. 4141.28(O) provides, in relevant part:

"Any interested party may, within thirty days after notice of the decision of the board was mailed to the last known post office address of all interested parties, appeal from the decision of the board to the court of common pleas of the county wherein the appellant, if an employee, is resident or has his principal place of business in this state. Such appeal shall be taken within such thirty days by the appellant by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the court of common pleas, with the board, and upon all appellees by certified mail to their last known post office address. * * * All other interested parties before the board or the referee shall be made appellees." (Emphasis added.)

"Interested party," as defined in R.C. 4141.01(I), includes the administrator of the Bureau of Employment Services.

This court, in Zier v. Bureau of Unemployment Comp. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 123, 84 N.E.2d 746, held in the first paragraph of the syllabus that: "An appeal, the right to which is conferred by statute, can be perfected only in the mode prescribed by statute. The exercise of the right conferred is conditional upon compliance with the accompanying mandatory requirements." We held further in the second paragraph of the syllabus that " * * * (c)ompliance with these specific and mandatory requirements governing the filing of such notice is essential to invoke jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas. * * * " See, also, Todd v. Garnes (1975), 44 Ohio St.2d 56, 337 N.E.2d 790. It is, therefore, well-established that where a statute confers a right of appeal, as in the instant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
89 cases
  • Capparell v. Love
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 30 Diciembre 1994
    ...of Liquor Control (1953), 96 Ohio App. 128, 54 O.O. 217, 121 N.E.2d 257, to be more persuasive. See, also, In re Claim of King (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 87, 16 O.O.3d 73, 403 N.E.2d 200. Although appellee has presented no evidence via affidavit or otherwise, appellee speculates that the notice ......
  • Graham v. City of Lakewood
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 10 Mayo 2018
    ...lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is not a waivable defense and may be raised for the first time on appeal." In re Claim of King , 62 Ohio St.2d 87, 89, 403 N.E.2d 200 (1980). Where mootness is concerned, "an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate or certiorari review, and n......
  • Ohio Multi-Use Trails Assn. v. Vinton Cty.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 21 Abril 2009
    ...lower court was required to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction whenever it determined such jurisdiction was lacking. Id. {¶ 9} R.C. 2506.01 provides that "every final order, adjudication, or decision of any officer, tribunal, authority, board, bureau, commission, dep......
  • Dressler Coal Co. v. Division of Reclamation, 87-LW-1308
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • 1 Mayo 1987
    ... ... requirements regarding time of filing, place of filing, and ... contents of the notice of appeal are jurisdictional defects, ... which leave the reviewing tribunal without jurisdiction to ... hear the appeal. American Restaurant; Zier, supra; In re ... Claim of King (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 87; H. Hafner & ... Sons, Inc. v. Lindley (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 130 ... The ... principle has not been limited to administrative appeals to ... the board of tax appeals under tax statutes but has been ... widely applied to many types ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT