# Harris v. Board of Education

> Ohio Court of Appeals · March 7, 1961 · 113 Ohio App. 187

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3729381

## Case

- **Full name:** Harris, Appellee, v. Board of Education of Southwestern City School District, Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** March 7, 1961
- **Citations:** 113 Ohio App. 187; 17 Ohio Op. 2d 145; 177 N.E.2d 613; 1961 Ohio App. LEXIS 691
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dueeey
- **Judges:** Dueey, Dueeey, Bryant
- **Cited by:** 1 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/3729381

## Opinion text

Dueeey, P. J.,
concurring. The action of the trial court in making a
de novo
determination seems a reasonable interpretation of its duties under Section 3319.16, Revised Code. That statute contemplates two possible procedures: (1) A determination based on transcripts of the original papers and the evidence before the board, and (2) a determination based on that material, plus additional evidence (where the judge accepts ad-, ditional evidence).
The case of
Roller
v.
Young et al., Board of Edn.,
cited supra, contains several statements on the scope of the trial court’s duties. However, a majority there found an error which required reversal under any of the views expressed. It should also be noted that in the
Roller case
the court was evenly divided with respect to the dictum and, further, that under the. facts there, additional evidence had been introduced.
In
Powell
v.
Young et al., Board of Edn.,
cited
supra,
the report does not indicate that any additional evidence was accepted. Paragraph one of the syllabus, and the result, constitutes a holding that a
de novo
determination cannot be made under those circumstances. Therefore, this court must reverse in the present case.
The syllabus in the
Powell case
does not state what standard should be followed. On determinations of fact, the principal opinion contains three statements bearing on the standard —that the question before the court was whether a finding of the board was “without sufficient evidence to support it,” that a “judicial review” is to be made, and that the findings of the
*192
board were “not against the manifest weight of the evidence.” In the
Roller case,
the opinion contains dictum that some of the court felt the standard was whether the board’s determinations were “fairly and lawfully” made.
“Judicial review” of fact findings by the board, where the court’s review is concerned only with the evidence before the board, would appear to mean that the Common Pleas Court must determine whether the board’s findings were against the manifest weight of that evidence.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3729381. Public record. Not legal advice.