From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wooster Iron v. Whitman

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Sep 25, 1973
305 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Ct. App. 1973)

Opinion

No. 73AP-255

Decided September 25, 1973.

Appeal — From Environmental Board of Review to Court of Appeals — Procedure governed by special statute — Stay of execution for undue hardship — R. C. 3745.06.

1. The Environmental Board of Review is an administrative agency, and the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure do not apply to appeals from such board to the Court of Appeals.

2. Where, in an appeal from and order of the Environmental Board of Review to the Court of Appeals under R. C. 3745.06, it appears that an unjust hardship will result from the execution of the board's order, the Court of Appeals may grant a suspension of the order and fix the terms.

APPEAL: Court of Appeals for Franklin County.

Messrs. Critchfield, Critchfield, Critchfield Johnston, Mr. Walter C. Grosjean of counsel, and Messrs. Wright, Harlor, Morris Arnold, Mr. Thomas E. Cavendish of counsel, for appellant.

Mr. William J. Brown, Attorney General, and Mr. Robert L. Brubaker, for appellee.


Appellant, Wooster Iron Metal Company, has filed a motion seeking a stay of execution of an order of the environmental board of review from which this appeal is taken pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure and R. C. 3745.06.

If the appellate rules were applicable, App. R. 7 would require that this relief be sought from the "trial court" and denied prior to the seeking of a stay, pending appeal, from this court. However, App. R. 1 specifically provides the appeals to which the appellate rules apply and reads as follows:

"These rules govern procedure in appeals from the trial courts of record in Ohio.

"Procedure in appeals to courts of appeals from the board of tax appeals shall be as provided by law, except that Rule 13 through Rule 33 herein shall be applicable to such appeals."

Accordingly, the appellate rules are limited in application to appeals from trial courts of record and do not apply to administrative appeals directly to the court of appeals except that Rule 13 through Rule 33 do apply to appeals from the board of tax appeals.

The environmental board of review is an administrative agency created by R. C. 3745.02. Since it is not a trial court of record, the appellate rules do not apply to appeals from that board to the court of appeals pursuant to R. C. 3745.06. Rather, that section controls appeals to the court of appeals from the environmental board of review. R. C. 3745.06 provides in this regard that:

"* * * The filing of a notice of appeal shall not automatically operate as a suspension of the order of the board. If it appears to the court that an unjust hardship to the appellant will result from the execution of the board's order pending determination of the appeal, the court may grant a suspension of the order and fix its terms. * * *"

The appellant has filed affidavits in support of its contention that unjust hardship will result from an execution of the board's order pending determination of this appeal. The appellee has filed nothing opposing the granting of a stay of execution.

In view of the fact that this appeal is scheduled for oral argument on the merits on November 8, 1973, and in view of the statements in the affidavits filed by appellant which have not been contested by appellee, the court finds that unjust hardship will result to appellant from an execution of the board's order prior to the determination of this appeal. The motion is sustained, and the stay of execution is granted.

Motion sustained

WHITESIDE, STRAUSBAUGH and REILLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wooster Iron v. Whitman

Court of Appeals of Ohio
Sep 25, 1973
305 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Ct. App. 1973)
Case details for

Wooster Iron v. Whitman

Case Details

Full title:WOOSTER IRON METAL CO., APPELLANT, v. WHITMAN, APPELLEE

Court:Court of Appeals of Ohio

Date published: Sep 25, 1973

Citations

305 N.E.2d 812 (Ohio Ct. App. 1973)
305 N.E.2d 812

Citing Cases

State, ex Rel. Labatte, v. Baynes

The Appellate Rules are clearly inapplicable to an appeal from a three-commissioner panel to the Court of…

Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne v. Rep. Waste Services of Ohio

{¶ 14} The parties concede that no Ohio court has addressed the interplay between the 30-day appeal window…