Ohio Supreme Court, 1986

Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co.

Ohio Supreme Court · Decided June 18, 1986 · Brown, Celebrezze, Douglas, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney, Wright

24 Ohio St. 3d 112; 493 N.E.2d 959; 24 Ohio B. 304; 1986 Ohio LEXIS 654

Cases that cite this one

38 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

Mateer v. Dept. of Job Family Servs., 07ap-966 (3-27-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Brown v. Ohio Dept of Job Family Servs., 08ap-239 (12-11-2008) (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)
Hannan v. Bureau of Employment Servs., Unpublished Decision (10-21-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Halluer v. Emigh (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
Grier v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)
Sogg v. Zurz (Ohio Ct. App. 2011)
Cerreta v. Dept. of Commerce, 2008 Ca 00125 (4-13-2009) (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
Gralewski v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Ohio Ct. App. 2006)
Burke v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division 2000)
Warnimont v. City of Findlay Health Dept., Unpublished Decision (11-16-1999) (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
Holliday v. Ohio Department of Alcohol & Drug Addiction Services (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
Drake v. Med. College of Ohio (Ohio Ct. App. 1997)
Harrison v. Ohio State Medical Board (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
Pilot Oil Corp. v. Ohio Department of Transportation (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)
Duffy v. Hamilton County Board of Commissioners (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Capparell v. Love (Ohio Ct. App. 1994)
Campbell v. Campbell (Ohio Ct. App. 1993)
Ohio Department of Natural Resources v. Hemlock Pipeline, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1991)
Wesley v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
Davis v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
Sun Refining & Marketing Co. v. Brennan (Ohio 1987)
Hansford v. Steinbacher (Ohio 1987)
State, Ex Rel. Polaroid Corp. v. Denihan (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)
FAM 13375, Inc. v. Brook Park Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Ohio Ct. App. 2025)
Brinker v. Frontier North, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 2016)

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.

R.C. 4141.28(G)(1) provides claimants with the right to request reconsideration of the denial of an application for unemployment benefits. A request for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after the notice of the denial was mailed. R.C. 4141.28(G)(1). Absent this statute, no such right of appeal would exist. See Ford v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 1, 4 [30 O.O. 236]. This court has consistently held that when a statute confers a right of appeal, the appeal can only be perfected in the manner prescribed by that statute. See McCruter v. Bd. of Review (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 277, 279 [18 O.O.3d 463]; Holmes v. Union Gospel Press (1980), 64 Ohio St. 2d 187, 188 [18 O.O.3d 405]; Zier v. Bur. of Unemployment Comp. (1949), 151 Ohio St. 123, 125 [38 O.O. 573].

Griffith’s appearance at the OBES office within the statutory time period for requesting reconsideration did not satisfy the requirement in R.C. 4141.28(G)(1) that a written request be timely filed. Because his completed form was not received by OBES until twenty-one days after the time limit, Griffith did not comply with the statute.

Griffith argues, however, that his right to appeal is nevertheless protected by equitable principles of estoppel. This argument is based on his testimony that the OBES employee date-stamped his form and told him that this would “cover” him. We reject Griffith’s argument. This court has previously refused to apply principles of estoppel against the state, its agencies or its agents, under circumstances involving an exercise of governmental functions. See Chevalier v. Brown (1985), 17 Ohio St. 3d 61, 63; Besl Corp. v. Pub. Util. Comm. (1976), 45 Ohio St. 2d 146, 150 [74 O.O.2d 262]; State, ex rel. Svete, v. Bd. of Elections (1965), 4 Ohio St. 2d 16, 18 [33 O.O.2d 139]. See, also, Schweiker v. Hansen (1981), 450 U.S. 785, rehearing denied (1981), 451 U.S. 1032. The OBES notification form adequately informed Griffith of the time limit for filing his request for recon*114sideration. We see no reason to depart from precedent and apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel under the circumstances of this case.

Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Celebrezze, C.J., Sweeney, Locher, Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur. C. Brown and Douglas, JJ., dissent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.