Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co.

493 N.E.2d 959, 24 Ohio St. 3d 112, 24 Ohio B. 304, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 654
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedJune 18, 1986
DocketNo. 85-1806
StatusPublished
Cited by38 cases

This text of 493 N.E.2d 959 (Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co.) 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.

Bluebook
Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co., 493 N.E.2d 959, 24 Ohio St. 3d 112, 24 Ohio B. 304, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 654 (Ohio 1986).

Opinion

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[114]*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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

FAM 13375, Inc. v. Brook Park Bd. of Zoning Appeals
2025 Ohio 4668 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Brinker v. Frontier North, Inc.
2016 Ohio 8279 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
Grier v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
2016 Ohio 3487 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
Sogg v. Zurz
947 N.E.2d 1256 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2011)
Cerreta v. Dept. of Commerce, 2008 Ca 00125 (4-13-2009)
2009 Ohio 1760 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2009)
Brown v. Ohio Dept of Job Family Servs., 08ap-239 (12-11-2008)
2008 Ohio 6523 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
Mateer v. Dept. of Job Family Servs., 07ap-966 (3-27-2008)
2008 Ohio 1426 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
In Re Wheeler, 88794 (8-2-2007)
2007 Ohio 3919 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2007)
Gralewski v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation
855 N.E.2d 879 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2006)
Burke v. Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles
759 N.E.2d 488 (Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
493 N.E.2d 959, 24 Ohio St. 3d 112, 24 Ohio B. 304, 1986 Ohio LEXIS 654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffith-v-jc-penney-co-ohio-1986.