Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.

311 N.E.2d 657, 38 Ohio St. 2d 196, 67 Ohio Op. 2d 205, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 442

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMay 22, 1974

DocketNo. 73-1013

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 311 N.E.2d 657 (Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.) 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

Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp., 311 N.E.2d 657, 38 Ohio St. 2d 196, 67 Ohio Op. 2d 205, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 442 (Ohio 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellants’ sole contention is that the time prescribed in R. C. 4141.28 for appealing the decision of the administrator on reconsideration is “determined from the date such decision is mailed,” and that appellee’s [197]*197appeal was not timely filed, because it was filed more than len days after the decision on reconsideration was “mailed” to appellee.

The burden of showing when the rehearing decision of the administrator was mailed was on the public agency. Here, no proof was established to show when that decision was actually deposited in the mail.

This court reaffirms its position in King v. Garnes (1973), 36 Ohio St. 2d 187, and, on authority of that case, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

O’Neill, C. J., CorrigaN, Steew, Celebrezjze, W. BROWN and P. BrowN, JJ., concur. Herbert, J., concurs in the judgment.

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