Mangold v. Board of Liquor Control

Ohio Court of Appeals

Mangold v. Board of Liquor Control

150 N.E.2d 461, 77 Ohio Law. Abs. 457, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 1070

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 8, 1957

DocketNo. 5617

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 150 N.E.2d 461 (Mangold v. Board of Liquor Control) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mangold v. Board of Liquor Control, 150 N.E.2d 461, 77 Ohio Law. Abs. 457, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 1070 (Ohio Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted upon the motion of the appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal of the Board of Liquor Control, appellant herein, for the reason that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by an administrative agency pursuant to §119.12 R. C., where the question presented is limited to a review of the correctness of the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas holding that the order of the administrative agency is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. It will be noted that the appeal does not relate to the constitutionality, construction or interpretation of the statute or to the rules and regulations of the Board but is directed only to the cor[458]*458rectness of the judgment. This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. See Katz v. Board of Liquor Control, 166 Oh St 229.

The motion will be sustained.

PETREE, PJ, MILLER, J, concur. BRYANT, J, not participating.

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

OPINION

By THE COURT.

Submitted upon the motion of the appellee seeking an order dismissing the appeal of the Board of Liquor Control, appellant herein, for the reason that the court does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal filed by an administrative agency pursuant to §119.12 R. C., where the question presented is limited to a review of the correctness of the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas holding that the order of the administrative agency is not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence. It will be noted that the appeal does not relate to the constitutionality, construction or interpretation of the statute or to the rules and regulations of the Board but is directed only to the cor[458]*458rectness of the judgment. This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal. See Katz v. Board of Liquor Control, 166 Oh St 229.

The motion will be sustained.

PETREE, PJ, MILLER, J, concur. BRYANT, J, not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 N.E.2d 461, 77 Ohio Law. Abs. 457, 1957 Ohio App. LEXIS 1070, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mangold-v-board-of-liquor-control-ohioctapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack