Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.

311 N.E.2d 657, 38 Ohio St. 2d 196, 67 Ohio Op. 2d 205, 1974 Ohio LEXIS 442
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided May 22, 1974·No. No. 73-1013·Published·Cited by 8 cases

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] appeal 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

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).

311 N.E.2d 657 (Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Abraitis v. Testa
2013 Ohio 4725 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2013)
Capparell v. Love
651 N.E.2d 484 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)
In Re Claim of Andersen
563 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1988)
Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Medical Board
525 N.E.2d 501 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1987)
Village of Moscow v. Ohio Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
491 N.E.2d 744 (Clermont County Court of Common Pleas, 1985)
McCruter v. Board of Review
415 N.E.2d 259 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980)
Proctor v. Giles
400 N.E.2d 393 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980)
Ridley v. Bureau of Motor Vehicles
361 N.E.2d 1350 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1976)