McCruter v. Board of Review, Bureau of Employment Services, No. 80-303
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; CELEBREZZE; LOCHER; STILLMAN, J., of the Eighth Appellate District, sitting for DOWD; LOCHER |
| Citation | 64 Ohio St.2d 277,18 O.O.3d 463,415 N.E.2d 259 |
| Parties | , 18 O.O.3d 463 McCRUTER, Appellee, v. BOARD OF REVIEW, BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES et al., Appellants. |
| Docket Number | No. 80-303 |
| Decision Date | 30 December 1980 |
Page 277
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, BUREAU OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES et al., Appellants.
Robert H. Bonthius, Jr., Shaker Heights, and Thomas W. Weeks, Columbus, for appellee.
William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., Eugene P. Nevada and Raymond A. Stegmeier, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellants.
PER CURIAM.
R.C. 4141.28(L) provides that:
"All interested parties shall be notified of the referee's decision which shall include the reasons therefor, which decision shall become final unless, within fourteen days after the decision was mailed to the last known post office address of such parties, the board on its own motion removes or transfers such claim to itself or, an application to institute a further appeal before the board is filed by any interested party and such appeal is allowed by the board."
Appellee contends that R.C. 4141.28(L) should be interpreted
Page 279
to allow an application for further appeal to be filed within 14 days of the receipt of notice rather than 14 days after the referee's decision was mailed. However, such a reading would be contrary to the explicit language of the statute. Consequently, we hold that R.C. 4141.28(L) requires an application to be filed within 14 days after the referee's decision is mailed, regardless of when it is received.Having so concluded, we must next decide whether that was done here. The certificate of mailing establishes that the referee's decision was mailed to the appellee on April 13, 1978. * Appellee filed an application to institute further appeal on May 2, 1978. Hence, the application was filed more than 14 days after the referee's decision was mailed.
Appellee's failure to file within the time limits of R.C. 4141.28(L) deprived the Board of Review of jurisdiction to hear the appeal. In Zier v. Bureau of Unemployment Comp. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 123, 84 N.E.2d 746, this court stated:
"An appeal, the right of which is conferred by statute, can be perfected only in the mode prescribed by statute. The exercise of the right conferred is conditioned upon compliance with the accompanying mandatory requirements."
[415 N.E.2d 261] As the appellee did not perfect her application for further appeal in the manner prescribed by R.C. 4141.28(L), the Board of Review was correct in dismissing the application.
Appellee also contends that she was denied notice as required by the Due Process Clauses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Welsh Dev. Co. v. Warren County Reg'l Planning Comm'n, No. CA2009-07-101.
...151 Ohio St. 123, 38 O.O. 573, 84 N.E.2d 746, paragraph one of the syllabus; McCruter v. Bd. of Review, Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279, 18 O.O.3d 463, 415 N.E.2d 259; Guysinger, 66 Ohio App.3d at 357, 584 N.E.2d 48; Thrower v. Akron, Summit App. No. 21061, 2002-Ohio-5943,......
-
Bennett v. Lopeman, No. C83-769.
...F. Supp. 782 Court has affirmed the meaning of the statute's time limits and notification procedures. See McCruter v. Board of Review, 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 415 N.E.2d 259 (1980); Holmes v. Union Gospel Press, 64 Ohio St.2d 187, 414 N.E.2d 415 (1980). Nor is there the threat of interfering wit......
-
Capparell v. Love, No. 94APE05-639
...the appeal will be dismissed." Arndt, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus; R.C. 119.12. See, also, McCruter v. Bd. of Review (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279, 18 O.O.3d 463, 464, 415 N.E.2d 259, 260; Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 112, 24 OBR 304, 493 N.E.2d 959; Mentor Bd......
-
Shirley E. Capparell, C/o Capparell Real Estate v. Kathleen Love and Robert Love, C/o Jeffers Realty Co., 94-LW-0570
...the appeal will be dismissed." Arndt, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus; R.C. 119.12. See, also, McCruter v. Bd. of Review (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279; Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 112; Bd. of Edn. of Mentor v. Bd. of Revision (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 332; Duffy v. H......
-
Welsh Dev. Co. v. Warren County Reg'l Planning Comm'n, No. CA2009-07-101.
...151 Ohio St. 123, 38 O.O. 573, 84 N.E.2d 746, paragraph one of the syllabus; McCruter v. Bd. of Review, Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279, 18 O.O.3d 463, 415 N.E.2d 259; Guysinger, 66 Ohio App.3d at 357, 584 N.E.2d 48; Thrower v. Akron, Summit App. No. 21061, 2002-Ohio-5943,......
-
Bennett v. Lopeman, No. C83-769.
...F. Supp. 782 Court has affirmed the meaning of the statute's time limits and notification procedures. See McCruter v. Board of Review, 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 415 N.E.2d 259 (1980); Holmes v. Union Gospel Press, 64 Ohio St.2d 187, 414 N.E.2d 415 (1980). Nor is there the threat of interfering wit......
-
Capparell v. Love, No. 94APE05-639
...the appeal will be dismissed." Arndt, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus; R.C. 119.12. See, also, McCruter v. Bd. of Review (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279, 18 O.O.3d 463, 464, 415 N.E.2d 259, 260; Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 112, 24 OBR 304, 493 N.E.2d 959; Mentor Bd......
-
Shirley E. Capparell, C/o Capparell Real Estate v. Kathleen Love and Robert Love, C/o Jeffers Realty Co., 94-LW-0570
...the appeal will be dismissed." Arndt, supra, paragraph one of the syllabus; R.C. 119.12. See, also, McCruter v. Bd. of Review (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279; Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co. (1986), 24 Ohio St.3d 112; Bd. of Edn. of Mentor v. Bd. of Revision (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 332; Duffy v. H......