# Nuspl v. City of Akron

> Ohio Supreme Court · August 21, 1991 · 61 Ohio St. 3d 511

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6763605

## Case

- **Full name:** Nuspl v. City of Akron, Appellees Anderson v. City of Akron
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 21, 1991
- **Citations:** 61 Ohio St. 3d 511; 575 N.E.2d 447; 1991 Ohio LEXIS 2079
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wright
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, Holmes, Moyer, Resnick, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 23 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/6763605

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an administrative hearing is judicial in nature where there is “notice to the [administrative litigant], and the opportunity ... to state his or her case in a hearing, which would necessarily involve the introduction of evidence by way of exhibits and/or testimony”

## Opinion text

Wright, J.,
dissenting. Today this court perpetuates the mistaken view found in Sutherland-Wagner v. Brook Park Civil Service Comm. (1987), 32 *520 Ohio St.3d 323 , 512 N.E.2d 1170 . See id. at 326 , 512 N.E.2d at 1173 (Wright, J., dissenting). Consequently I must again respectfully dissent.
R.C. 2506.01 is a statute general in nature. R.C. Chapter 124, on the other hand, contains the state’s specific regulation of civil service employment. R.C. 1.51 requires that, in the event of irreconcilability, general provisions yield to special or local provisions. Accordingly, appellants’ rights or lack of rights to appeal should be governed by R.C. Chapter 124, which in this instance provides no right to appeal to the court of common pleas.
The courts of this state are already overburdened. The General Assembly has provided an in-depth administrative scheme in R.C. Chapter 124 to deal with the problems in this case, and this court yet again ignores that legislative mandate.
For this reason and the reasons I set forth in my dissent to Sutherland-Wagner, supra, I must respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6763605. Public record. Not legal advice.