Stieben v. Dollison

Ohio Court of Appeals

Stieben v. Dollison

456 N.E.2d 842, 8 Ohio App. 3d 188, 8 Ohio B. 248, 1983 WL 3384, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 10947

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 1, 1983

Docket82AP-709

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 N.E.2d 842 (Stieben v. Dollison) 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

Stieben v. Dollison, 456 N.E.2d 842, 8 Ohio App. 3d 188, 8 Ohio B. 248, 1983 WL 3384, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 10947 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

McCormac, J.

Respondent has moved this court to dismiss petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus, asserting among other grounds that petitioner has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal.

R.C. 119.01(A) defines “agency” to include “* * * the licensing functions of any administrative or executive officer, department, division, [or] bureau * * * of the government of the state having the authority or responsibility of issuing, suspending, revoking, or canceling licenses. * * *” The duties of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under R.C. Chapter 4507, including R.C. 4507.08(A), with respect to operator’s licenses as defined by R.C. 4507.01, constitute the exercise of licensing functions within the contemplation of R.C. 119.01(A). Accordingly, the determination of petitioner’s right to an operator’s license, or reinstatement thereof, constitutes an “adjudication” as defined by R.C. 119.01(D), and R.C. 119.06, 119.07 and 119.12 are applicable.

Since petitioner has available the administrative and appeal remedies provided by R.C. Chapter 119, he has an adequate remedy precluding mandamus as an appropriate remedy.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is sustained.

Motion to dismiss sustained.

Whiteside, P.J., and Norris* J., concur.

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

McCormac, J.

Respondent has moved this court to dismiss petitioner’s petition for a writ of mandamus, asserting among other grounds that petitioner has an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal.

R.C. 119.01(A) defines “agency” to include “* * * the licensing functions of any administrative or executive officer, department, division, [or] bureau * * * of the government of the state having the authority or responsibility of issuing, suspending, revoking, or canceling licenses. * * *” The duties of the Registrar of Motor Vehicles under R.C. Chapter 4507, including R.C. 4507.08(A), with respect to operator’s licenses as defined by R.C. 4507.01, constitute the exercise of licensing functions within the contemplation of R.C. 119.01(A). Accordingly, the determination of petitioner’s right to an operator’s license, or reinstatement thereof, constitutes an “adjudication” as defined by R.C. 119.01(D), and R.C. 119.06, 119.07 and 119.12 are applicable.

Since petitioner has available the administrative and appeal remedies provided by R.C. Chapter 119, he has an adequate remedy precluding mandamus as an appropriate remedy.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is sustained.

Motion to dismiss sustained.

Whiteside, P.J., and Norris* J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 N.E.2d 842, 8 Ohio App. 3d 188, 8 Ohio B. 248, 1983 WL 3384, 1983 Ohio App. LEXIS 10947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stieben-v-dollison-ohioctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack