# Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners v. State

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 9, 2005 · 162 Ohio App. 3d 6

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3691600

## Case

- **Full name:** CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Appellee, v. the STATE of Ohio Et Al., Appellants
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 9, 2005
- **Citations:** 162 Ohio App. 3d 6; 2005 Ohio 2821; 832 N.E.2d 745
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Calabrese
- **Judges:** Rocco, Sweeney, Calabrese
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3691600

## Opinion text

*15
Calabrese, Judge,
dissenting.
{¶ 25} I respectfully dissent from my learned colleagues in the majority. The appropriation of funds is a legislative function. The Ohio General Assembly enacted Section 63.09 of Am.Sub.H.B. No. 94. This was an appropriation measure made as part of the state’s biennial budget. The trial court, by ordering the transfer of the $60 million back to ODJFS, took on a legislative function. I believe that this order was beyond the trial court’s judicial boundaries; the most the trial court could have done was to declare Section 63.09 of Am.Sub.H.B. 94 invalid. The doctrine of separation of powers prevented the trial court from going further.
{¶ 26} The transferred funds in the case at bar were not supplied by the federal government for the purpose of providing welfare services. Rather, the federal government reimbursed Ohio for expenses that the state had already incurred in providing such services. Therefore, the $60 million belonged to the state, and the state was free to use the reimbursement funds as it determined.
{¶ 27} Accordingly, I would reverse and remand.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3691600. Public record. Not legal advice.