Charles Pollock & Sons, Inc. v. City of Cleveland
This text of 397 N.E.2d 1193 (Charles Pollock & Sons, Inc. v. City of Cleveland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
To decide this cause, we only need to determine if the resolution in Docket A-49-69, dated March 30, 1970, is valid under Section 3103.18 of the Codified Ordinances of the city of Cleveland. Appellant does not contest that board resolutions can be given res judicata effect,1 nor does appellant assert that res judicata would not properly apply to the resolution of March 30,1970, at the September 27, 1971, hearing if the-resolution were valid.2
Appellant contends that the resolution is invalid because the board failed to send appellant a certified copy of it as required by Section 3103.18 (c) (l)3. Moreover, appellant [99]*99asserts that the board’s arbitrary disregard of this section’s mandatory notice requirement is a denial of appellant’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.4
Our examination of the board’s procedure pursuant to Section 3103.18 discloses that the sending of a certified copy of the resolution of March 30,1970, to appellant was a directory rather than a mandatory requirement. Therefore, there is no merit to either of appellant’s contentions.
Under Section 3103.18 (c) (2)5, the board constructively notifies parties of its decisions by publishing its resolutions in the City Record, not through mailing certified copies of these resolutions to parties.6 The periods within which a party must either comply7 or seek judicial review8 are keyed to this date of publication, not to the date of mailing or receipt of a certified copy. In fact no procedures under Section 3103.18 turn on whether or when a certified copy is mailed, nor does See[100]*100tion 3103.18 specify when a certified copy is to be mailed, or that it needs to be received.
In addition, Section 3103.18 (g) (3) requires that appellant apply to the appropriate court “within 15 days after the posting or publication***to correct errors of law***.” Under Section 3103.18 (c) (2), the board publishes a decision by entering it in the City Record. The resolution of March 30, 1970, was so published on or about August 20, 1970. Thus, under Section 3103.18, appellant’s receipt or non-receipt of a certified copy of the resolution had no impact upon the commencement of this 15-day period.
Because the mailing of the certified copy serves no essential function under Section 3103.18, we determine it to be a directory requirement. Thus, the resolution is valid without regard to its mailing. Since the resolution is valid, we also find appellant’s due process argument totally without merit.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
397 N.E.2d 1193, 60 Ohio St. 2d 97, 14 Ohio Op. 3d 333, 1979 Ohio LEXIS 507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-pollock-sons-inc-v-city-of-cleveland-ohio-1979.