Ohio Supreme Court, 1974

Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided May 22, 1974 · No. 73-1013 · Brown, Celebrezjze, Corrigan, Herbert, Neill, Steew

38 Ohio St. 2d 196; 311 N.E.2d 657; 67 Ohio Op. 2d 205; 1974 Ohio LEXIS 442

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Proctor v. Giles (Ohio 1980)
Capparell v. Love (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Abraitis v. Testa (Ohio 2013)
In re Claim of Andersen (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Board (Ohio Ct. App. 1987)
Village of Moscow v. Ohio Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Clermont County Court of Common Pleas 1985)
McCruter v. Board of Review (Ohio 1980)
Ridley v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Ohio Ct. App. 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

Appellants’ sole contention is that the time prescribed in R. C. 4141.28 for appealing the decision of the administrator on reconsideration is “determined from the date such decision is mailed,” and that appellee’s *197appeal was not timely filed, because it was filed more than len days after the decision on reconsideration was “mailed” to appellee.

The burden of showing when the rehearing decision of the administrator was mailed was on the public agency. Here, no proof was established to show when that decision was actually deposited in the mail.

This court reaffirms its position in King v. Garnes (1973), 36 Ohio St. 2d 187, and, on authority of that case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., CorrigaN, Steew, Celebrezjze, W. BROWN and P. BrowN, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., concurs in the judgment.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.