MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Board of Franklin County Commissioners

2 Citing cases

  1. Buckeye Relief, L.L.C. v. State

    2020 Ohio 4916 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 3 times

    According to the trial court, the evaluators exercised their honest judgments as demonstrated by the differing ranges of scores Buckeye Relief received on the capital-commitment and other questions. The trial court accepted the parties' contention that Danis Clarkco Landfill controlled the agency's standard of review and further relied on State ex rel. Shafer v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. , 159 Ohio St. 581, 590, 113 N.E.2d 14 (1953), and MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Bd. of Franklin Cty. Commrs. , 127 Ohio App.3d 127, 136, 711 N.E.2d 1050 (10th Dist.1998), for the proposition that the exercise of honest judgment does not constitute abuse of discretion irrespective of whether the judgment is erroneous, and as a result, the board applied the proper standard of review. Based on its review of the record, the trial court concluded that the board's decision was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

  2. Aetna Better Health, Inc. v. Colbert

    2012 Ohio 6206 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012)

    {ΒΆ31} However, the fact that ODJFS may have interpreted the RFA in a different manner than Amerigroup has not been considered an abuse of discretion. See MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Bd. of Franklin Cty. Commrs., 127 Ohio App.3d 127, 136 (10th Dist.1998) (different interpretations of terms is not dispositive of whether county commissioners abused their discretion). Differences of interpretation, or even simple mistakes by ODJFS are not an abuse of discretion.