Opinion

Capello v. City of Mayfield Heights

  • 27 Ohio St. 2d 1
  • 56 Ohio Op. 2d 1
  • 271 N.E.2d 831
  • 1971 Ohio LEXIS 463
Court
Ohio Supreme Court
Filed
Jun 30, 1971
Status
Published
Author
Schneider
On the bench
Corrigan, Duncan, Herbert, Leach, Neill, Schneider, Stern
Cited by
6 cases

The opinion

Schneider, J.,

concurring. I would instruct the Court of Common Pleas to decide the appeal on the basis of the transcript and the additional evidence which it permitted to be introduced.

The additional evidence was proper because the administrative board failed to cause the witness before it to be sworn. R. C. 2506.01 et seq. recognizes that the position of parties to an administrative hearing is markedly dissimilar to their position before a court.

Most administrative agencies are staffed by laymen to the law, who do not possess sufficient appreciation, as does a judge, of the duty to honor objections and exceptions and to permit a full record to be made for the purpose of appeal. Even to request a procedural right before an agency often engenders hostility. Thus, the statute authorizes additional evidence upon appeal if any one of the nine specific criteria is not met by the agency.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.