Steinbacher v. Louis

18 Citing cases

  1. Franklin County Sheriff v. Frazier

    2007 Ohio 7001 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 13 times

    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.

  2. Licking Cnty. Veterans Servs. Comm'n v. Holmes

    2020 Ohio 3294 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020)

    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.

  3. Traub v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs

    114 Ohio App. 3d 486 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)   Cited 9 times

    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.

  4. Tuscarawas Cnty. Pub. Defender's Office v. Goudy

    2023 Ohio 1653 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023)

    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

  5. Dep't of Youth Servs. v. Grimsley

    2018 Ohio 1530 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018)

    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).

  6. Ressler v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation

    2009 Ohio 5857 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    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.

  7. Miller v. Columbus City Public Schools

    2009 Ohio 2756 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)

    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.

  8. Pope v. Dept. of Rehab. Corr

    2008 Ohio 5064 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 3 times
    In Pope, we concluded an order of the SPBR recommending dismissal of the employee's appeal from the denial of his request for reinstatement "appropriately concluded [the employee] could not be reinstated when he was receiving [TTD] benefits."

    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

  9. Maurer v. Franklin County Treasurer

    2008 Ohio 3468 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008)

    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.

  10. Cantrell v. State Bd. Emer. Med. Ser.

    2007 Ohio 149 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007)

    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.