State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 99-1041.

Citation718 NE 2d 908,87 Ohio St.3d 184
Decision Date17 November 1999
Docket NumberNo. 99-1041.,99-1041.
PartiesTHE STATE EX REL. WRIGHT, APPELLANT, v. REGISTRAR, OHIO BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES, APPELLEE.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

George W. Macdonald, for appellant.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Kenneth F. Affeldt, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Per Curiam.

Wright asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his prohibition action. For the following reasons, Wright's claims are meritless.

In order to be entitled to a writ of prohibition, Wright had to establish that (1) the Registrar is about to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of such power is unauthorized by law, and (3) denial of the writ will cause injury to Wright for which no other adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law exists. State ex rel. White v. Junkin (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 335, 336, 686 N.E.2d 267, 268.

R.C. 4509.101(A)(3)(c) provides that whenever in accordance with rules adopted by the Registrar, the Registrar randomly selects a person who has been issued a license to operate a motor vehicle, that person must, upon request, verify the existence of proof of financial responsibility covering the operation of motor vehicle. Pursuant to R.C. 4509.101(A)(3)(c), the Registrar adopted Ohio Adm. Code 4501:1-2-08, which governs the random-selection suspension procedure and provides:

"(C) If the owner of a vehicle randomly selected pursuant to rule 4501:1-2-07 of the Administrative Code, within twenty-one days of the mailing of the notice, fails to respond to the notice, fails to give acceptable evidence that the vehicle is exempt, or fails to give acceptable proof of financial responsibility, the registrar shall order the suspension of the license of the person required under division (A)(2)(a) of section 4509.101 of the Revised Code and the impoundment of the person's certificate of registration and license plates required under division (A)(2)(b) of section 4509.101 of the Revised Code, effective thirty days after the date of the mailing of notification. The registrar also shall notify the person that the person must present the registrar with proof of financial responsibility, submit evidence acceptable to the registrar showing that the vehicle is exempt, or surrender to the registrar the person's certificate of registration, license plates, and license. Notification shall be in writing and shall be sent to the person at the person's last know[n] address as shown on the records of the bureau of motor vehicles. The person, within fifteen days after the date of the mailing of notification, shall present proof of financial responsibility, submit evidence showing that the vehicle is exempt, together with any other information the person considers appropriate, or surrender the certificate of registration, license plates, and license to the registrar.

"(D) If the registrar does not receive proof, the person does not give acceptable evidence that the vehicle is exempt in accordance with this rule, or does not surrender the certificate of registration, license plates, and license, the registrar shall permit the order of the suspension of the license of the person and the impoundment of the person's certificate of registration and license plates to take effect. "(E) In the case of a person who presents, within the fifteen-day period, documents to show proof of financial responsibility, the registrar shall terminate the order of suspension and the impoundment of the registration and license plates required under division (A)(2)(b) of section 4509.101 of the Revised Code and shall send written notification to the person, at the person's last known address as shown on the records of the bureau.

"(F) Any person adversely affected by the order of the registrar, within ten days after the issuance of the order, may request an administrative hearing before the registrar, who shall provide the person with an opportunity for a hearing in accordance with this paragraph. A request for a hearing does not operate as a suspension of the order. The scope of the hearing shall be limited to whether the vehicle is exempt and whether the person in fact demonstrated to the registrar proof of financial responsibility in accordance with this section. The registrar shall determine the date, time, and place of any hearing, provided, that the hearing shall be held, and an order issued or findings made, within thirty days after the registrar receives a request for a hearing. Such person shall pay the cost of the hearing before the registrar, if the registrar's order of suspension or impoundment is upheld."

The Registrar had not exercised nor is he about to exercise quasi-judicial authority in issuing the suspension order against Wright pursuant to R.C. 4509.101(A)(3)(c) and Ohio Adm.Code 4501:1-2-08. Quasi-judicial authority is the power to hear and determine controversies between the public and individuals that require a hearing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • State ex rel. Schachter v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • April 16, 2009
    ...Brand v. Lindley (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 133, 16 O.O.3d 150, 403 N.E.2d 996, syllabus; cf. State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908 authority is the power to hear and determine controversies between the public and individuals that requ......
  • ZUPP v. COLUMBUS Mun. CIVIL Serv. Comm'n
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 2010
    ...Bd. of Elections, 119 Ohio St.3d 478, 2008-Ohio-5093, 895 N.E.2d 177, ¶ 16; State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908 (all determining that proceedings of administrative officers and agencies are not quasi-judicial unless the proceedi......
  • State ex rel. Internatl. Heat & Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers Local #3 v. Cuyahoga Cty. Court of Common Pleas, 2006 Ohio 274 (OH 1/20/2006), 85116.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • January 20, 2006
    ... ... in State ex rel. Ohio AFL-CIO v. Ohio Bur. of Workers' Comp. , 97 Ohio St. 3d 504, 2002-Ohio-6717, ... State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 185, ... ...
  • The State Ex Rel. Letohiovote.Org v. Brunner
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • May 3, 2010
    ...Cty. Bd. of Elections, 119 Ohio St.3d 478, 2008-Ohio-5093, 895 N.E.2d 177, ¶ 16, quoting State ex rel. Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908. {¶ 14} The secretary of state claims that she was authorized by R.C. 3501.05(N)(1) to investigate whet......
  • 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