Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., Nos. 97-1905 and 97-1997

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Ohio
Writing for the CourtFRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr.; MOYER
Citation702 N.E.2d 70,84 Ohio St.3d 100
Docket NumberNos. 97-1905 and 97-1997
Decision Date09 December 1998
PartiesNIBERT, Appellant, v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, Appellee.

Page 100

84 Ohio St.3d 100
702 N.E.2d 70
NIBERT, Appellant,
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION, Appellee.
Nos. 97-1905 and 97-1997.
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted Sept. 16, 1998.
Decided Dec. 9, 1998.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

The failure to file a copy of the notice of appeal within the fifteen-day period as set forth in R.C. 119.12 deprives the common pleas court of jurisdiction over the appeal.

Marie Nibert, appellant, was employed as a Personnel Officer 3 at the London Correctional Institution. On March 18, 1996, she received a disciplinary order notifying her that she was being reduced in pay and position to Personnel Officer 2 for insubordination and alteration of documents.

On March 25, 1996, appellant appealed her reduction to the State Personnel Board of Review ("SPBR"), which eventually affirmed the disciplinary order on July 10, 1996. On July 25, 1996, Nibert timely filed the notice of appeal with the SPBR. However, she mistakenly filed a copy of the notice of appeal in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas rather than in her county of residence, Madison County, where it was required to be filed. 1

Upon realizing the mistake, appellant filed a copy of the notice of appeal in Madison County on September 24, 1996. Appellant also filed a motion to transfer the appeal from Franklin County to Madison County, but the motion was denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Since it held that the copy of the notice was filed beyond the fifteen-day deadline imposed by R.C. 119.12, the Madison County Court of Common Pleas dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on October 28, 1996. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Appellant then filed a discretionary appeal with this court, as well as a motion to certify a conflict

Page 101

among the courts of appeals, which the Twelfth District Court of Appeals granted. This court allowed the discretionary appeal, determined that a conflict exists, and ordered the cases consolidated.

[702 N.E.2d 71] Tanner, Mathewson & Hansgen and Shirley C. Hansgen, London, for appellant.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and John B. Kahle, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Peter M. Thomas and Anne Berry Strait, Assistant Attorneys General, urging affirmance for amici curiae, State Personnel Board of Review et al.

FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, Sr., Justice.

The court of appeals certified the following issue for our determination: "When a party files a notice of appeal with an administrative agency within the fifteen-day period set forth in R.C. 119.12, but fails to file a copy of the notice of appeal with the appropriate court of common pleas within the fifteen-day period, does the court of common pleas have subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal?" For the reasons that follow, we answer the question in the negative. The failure to file a copy of the notice of appeal within the fifteen-day period as set forth in R.C. 119.12 deprives the common pleas court of jurisdiction over the appeal. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

R.C. 119.12 states, "Any party desiring to appeal shall file a notice of appeal with the agency setting forth the order appealed from and the grounds of his appeal. A copy of such notice of appeal shall also be filed by the appellant with the court. Unless otherwise provided by law relating to a particular agency, such notices of appeal shall be filed within fifteen...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 practice notes
  • Welsh Dev. Co. v. Warren County Reg'l Planning Comm'n, No. CA2009-07-101.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 22, 2010
    ...board or agency from which the appeal is being taken and with the common pleas court); Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 101, 702 N.E.2d 70 (R.C. 2505.04 “states that an appeal is perfected by the timely filing of the notice of appeal with the particular agen......
  • Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, No. 2006-0107.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 27, 2007
    ...and the notice of appeal filed with the common pleas court are distinct documents. Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 702 N.E.2d 70. There, we held that the 15-day filing requirement expressed in the statute applies both to the notice of appeal filed with the ......
  • Clovernook Health Care Pavilion v. Ohio Dep't of Medicaid, No. 20AP-87
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 5, 2021
    ...ex rel. Ragozine v. Shaker , 96 Ohio St.3d 201, 2002-Ohio-3992, 772 N.E.2d 1192, ¶ 14, quoting Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 103, 702 N.E.2d 70 (1998), and In re Removal of Osuna, 116 Ohio App.3d 339, 341, 688 N.E.2d 42 (12th Dist.1996).{¶ 13} The parties in th......
  • Horen v. Board of Educ. of Toledo City School, Case No. 3:07CV03779.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • July 30, 2008
    ...Hughes v. Ohio Dep't of Commerce, 114 Ohio St.3d 47, 52, 868 N.E.2d 246 (2007) (citing Nibert v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 702 N.E.2d 70 (1998)). In Hughes, the plaintiff received notice of the Ohio Department of Commerce's intent to remove her from her job. Id. at 48......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
46 cases
  • Welsh Dev. Co. v. Warren County Reg'l Planning Comm'n, No. CA2009-07-101.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 22, 2010
    ...board or agency from which the appeal is being taken and with the common pleas court); Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 101, 702 N.E.2d 70 (R.C. 2505.04 “states that an appeal is perfected by the timely filing of the notice of appeal with the particular agen......
  • Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, No. 2006-0107.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • June 27, 2007
    ...and the notice of appeal filed with the common pleas court are distinct documents. Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 702 N.E.2d 70. There, we held that the 15-day filing requirement expressed in the statute applies both to the notice of appeal filed with the ......
  • Clovernook Health Care Pavilion v. Ohio Dep't of Medicaid, No. 20AP-87
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • February 5, 2021
    ...ex rel. Ragozine v. Shaker , 96 Ohio St.3d 201, 2002-Ohio-3992, 772 N.E.2d 1192, ¶ 14, quoting Nibert v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. , 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 103, 702 N.E.2d 70 (1998), and In re Removal of Osuna, 116 Ohio App.3d 339, 341, 688 N.E.2d 42 (12th Dist.1996).{¶ 13} The parties in th......
  • Horen v. Board of Educ. of Toledo City School, Case No. 3:07CV03779.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • July 30, 2008
    ...Hughes v. Ohio Dep't of Commerce, 114 Ohio St.3d 47, 52, 868 N.E.2d 246 (2007) (citing Nibert v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 84 Ohio St.3d 100, 702 N.E.2d 70 (1998)). In Hughes, the plaintiff received notice of the Ohio Department of Commerce's intent to remove her from her job. Id. at 48......
  • 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