Under such circumstances, the common pleas court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Id., citing Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68, 520 N.E.2d 1381, citing Ogan, supra; Traub v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 486, 491, 683 N.E.2d 411. {¶ 17} An appellate court's review is more limited than that of the common pleas court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621, 614 N.E.2d 748.
Under such circumstances, the common pleas court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Id., citing Steinbacher v. Louis, 36 Ohio App.3d 68, 520 N.E.2d 1381 (8th Dist.1987). On the question of whether the board's order is in accordance with the law, the appellate court's review is plenary.
The SPBR has the authority to modify an appointing authority's punishment of a classified employee if it considers the punishment to be unduly harsh in light of mitigating circumstances present in the case. Scott v. Reinier (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 289, 292, 14 O.O.3d 256, 258, 396 N.E.2d 1041, 1043-1044; Maiden v. Fayette Cty. Bd. of Retardation (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 196, 199-200, 16 OBR 211, 213-214, 475 N.E.2d 135, 138-139; Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68, 70, 520 N.E.2d 1381, 1383-1384. Where there is reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supporting the SPBR's order modifying the punishment meted out by the appointing authority, the trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the SPBR.
Under such circumstances, the common pleas court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Id., citing Steinbacher v. Louis, 36 Ohio App.3d 68, 520 N.E.2d 1381 (8th Dist.1987). Appellate Standard of Review
Under such circumstances, the common pleas court may not substitute its judgment for that of SPBR. Id., citing Steinbacher v. Louis, 36 Ohio App.3d 68 (8th Dist.1987), citing Ogan; Traub v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 114 Ohio App.3d 486, 491 (10th Dist.1996). {¶ 16} An appellate court's review is more limited than that of the common pleas court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 (1993).
Where, however, the evidence supports the board's decision, the common pleas court must affirm the board and may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68, 71. {¶ 13} An appellate court's review of the board's decision is even more limited than the common pleas court's review.
Under such circumstances, the common pleas court may not substitute its judgment for that of the commission. Id., citing Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68, 71, citing Ogan, supra; Traub v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 486, 491. III.
Under such circumstances, the common pleas court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Id., citing Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68, 71, 520 N.E.2d 1381, citing Ogan, supra; Traub v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 486, 491, 683 N.E.2d 411. B. Additional Evidence
Under such circumstances, the common pleas court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board. Id., citing Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68, citing Ogan, supra; Traub v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1996), 114 Ohio App.3d 486, 491. {¶ 17} An appellate court's review is more limited than that of the common pleas court. Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621.
Furthermore, a trial court may not try the issues de novo or substitute its judgment for the administrative agency. See Smith v. Sushka (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 465, 470, 659 N.E.2d 875; Cook v. Maxwell (1989), 57 Ohio App.3d 131, 135, 567 N.E.2d 292; Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68, 71, 520 N.E.2d 1381. A common pleas court may, however, decide purely legal questions de novo.