explaining that "[a]n agency adjudication is like a trial, and while the reviewing court must defer to the lower tribunal's findings of fact, it must construe the law on its own. To the extent that an agency's decision is based on construction of the state or federal Constitution, a statute, or case law, No. 20AP-87 4 the common pleas court must undertake its R.C. 119.12 reviewing task completely independently"
How later courts described this case
- explaining that "[a]n agency adjudication is like a trial, and while the reviewing court must defer to the lower tribunal's findings of fact, it must construe the law on its own. To the extent that an agency's decision is based on construction of the state or federal Constitution, a statute, or case law, No. 20AP-87 4 the common pleas court must undertake its R.C. 119.12 reviewing task completely independently"
- noting that in an administrative appeal process, a common pleas court independently reviews an administrative agency's decision "[t]o the extent that an agency's decision is based on construction of the state or federal Constitution, a statute, or case law"
- " 'We take this precedent to mean that an agency's findings of fact are presumed to be correct and must be deferred to by a reviewing court unless that court determines that the agency's findings are internally inconsistent, impeached by evidence of a prior inconsistent statement, rest upon improper inferences, or are otherwise unsupportable.' "
- if an agency determination is made pursuant to a state statute, case law, or state or federal Constitution, a reviewing court must construe the law on its own
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Douglas, J.,
concurring. The only real issue presented by this case is whether the Ohio Historical Society (“OHS”) is a “public employer.” The court of appeals, in its opinion, identified the question as “[t]he singular issue before us * * Appellant SERB and appellee OHS did not brief or argue, except in a general way, the other issues commented on and decided by the majority.
Is OHS a public employer pursuant to R.C. 4117.01(B)? I think not and I concur with the majority’s discussion of the issue as found in Part 111(B)(1) and (2) of the majority opinion. While OHS may have some of the indicia of a public employer, and while it may even walk like, look like and quack like a public employer, the fact remains that it is still a private not-for-profit corporation and, under these peculiar circumstances, cannot be a public employer.
I note in passing, as the majority does in fn. 2, that the regional director of the NLRB has concluded that OHS is, under federal law, a “political subdivision.” Given our decision today, I would respectfully suggest that this matter be reviewed by proper authorities given the test set forth and approved by the United States Supreme Court in Natl. Labor Relations Bd. v. Natural Gas Util. Dist. of Hawkins Cty. (1971), 402 U.S. 600 , 91 S.Ct. 1746 , 29 L.Ed.2d 206 .