State ex rel. Maynard v. Whitfield

Ohio Supreme Court

State ex rel. Maynard v. Whitfield

465 N.E.2d 406, 12 Ohio St. 3d 49, 12 Ohio B. 42, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1160

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 3, 1984

DocketNo. 83-1227

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 465 N.E.2d 406 (State ex rel. Maynard v. Whitfield) 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

State ex rel. Maynard v. Whitfield, 465 N.E.2d 406, 12 Ohio St. 3d 49, 12 Ohio B. 42, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1160 (Ohio 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is well-settled that the statutory procedure for review of OEPA actions set forth in R.C. Chapter 3745 is exclusive and that courts of common pleas are without jurisdiction to proceed in actions for declaratory and injunctive relief involving controversies under R.C. Chapter 3745. State, ex rel. Williams, v. Bozarth (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 34 [9 O.O.3d 19], and Warren Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Williams (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 352 [10 O.O.3d 484].

R.C. 3745.07 requires notice of a proposed action to be published “* * * within fifteen days after the date of the proposed action * * *.” In the case at bar, notice was published on May 6, 1983, concededly later than the time required by statute. Thus, Brunswick claims it was deprived of the remedies afforded to it by statute and may bring the underlying action against relator. Brunswick, however, did not attempt to take any action in response to the published notice. Had it done so, the issue of whether the notice was timely could have been adjudicated in proceedings under R.C. Chapter 3745. For this reason, the fact that notice was untimely does not create an exception to the rule set forth in State, ex rel. Williams, supra, and Warren Molded Plastics, Inc., supra.

Accordingly, the writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J.P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

It is well-settled that the statutory procedure for review of OEPA actions set forth in R.C. Chapter 3745 is exclusive and that courts of common pleas are without jurisdiction to proceed in actions for declaratory and injunctive relief involving controversies under R.C. Chapter 3745. State, ex rel. Williams, v. Bozarth (1978), 55 Ohio St. 2d 34 [9 O.O.3d 19], and Warren Molded Plastics, Inc. v. Williams (1978), 56 Ohio St. 2d 352 [10 O.O.3d 484].

R.C. 3745.07 requires notice of a proposed action to be published “* * * within fifteen days after the date of the proposed action * * *.” In the case at bar, notice was published on May 6, 1983, concededly later than the time required by statute. Thus, Brunswick claims it was deprived of the remedies afforded to it by statute and may bring the underlying action against relator. Brunswick, however, did not attempt to take any action in response to the published notice. Had it done so, the issue of whether the notice was timely could have been adjudicated in proceedings under R.C. Chapter 3745. For this reason, the fact that notice was untimely does not create an exception to the rule set forth in State, ex rel. Williams, supra, and Warren Molded Plastics, Inc., supra.

Accordingly, the writ prayed for is allowed.

Writ allowed.

Celebrezze, C.J., W. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes, C. Brown and J.P. Celebrezze, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

465 N.E.2d 406, 12 Ohio St. 3d 49, 12 Ohio B. 42, 1984 Ohio LEXIS 1160, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-maynard-v-whitfield-ohio-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack