# State ex rel. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Agriculture v. Forchione (Slip Opinion)

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 18, 2016 · 148 Ohio St. 3d 105

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9823358

## Case

- **Full name:** The State Ex Rel. Dir., Ohio Department of Agriculture, v. Forchione, Judge; Huntsman Et Al.
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 18, 2016
- **Citations:** 148 Ohio St. 3d 105; 69 N.E.3d 636; 2016 Ohio 3049
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by O'Neill
- **Judges:** French, Kennedy, Lanzinger, O'Connor, O'Donnell, O'Neill, Pfeifer
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9823358

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that R.C. 935.20(A) gives the Ohio Department of Agriculture the exclusive authority to order the quarantine or transfer of dangerous wild animals

## Opinion text

O’Neill, J.,
dissenting.
{¶ 31} Respectfully, I must dissent.
(¶ 32} Neither this court nor the trial court have sufficient evidence to determine what exactly is happening in this case. For that reason, I would grant only an alternative writ so that this court can make an informed decision.
{¶ 33} But one thing is eminently clear. The Ohio Department of Agriculture (“ODA”) sought a search warrant from the court of common pleas. After Cynthia Huntsman asked the same court to intervene and order the return of property seized during the execution of that warrant, the ODA showed up in this court arguing that the court of common pleas “patently and unambiguously” lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute. The majority holds that the animals were seized under the exclusive statutory authority granted solely to the ODA. But the statute’s inclusion of the court of common pleas in the statutory scheme for intruding onto Huntsman’s property belies that position. R.C. 935.19(A)(2) and (3).
{¶ 34} Respectfully, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9823358. Public record. Not legal advice.