Capparell v. Love

Finding the majority opinion to be inconsistent with pronouncements of the Ohio Supreme Court, I must respectfully dissent.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the burden is upon an administrative agency to present evidence proving the actual time of mailing of its decision when contending that a notice of appeal was not timely filed. See, e.g., King v. Garnes (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 187, 65 O.O.2d 404, 305 N.E.2d 798; Wyeuff v. Fotomat Corp. (1974), 38 Ohio St.2d 196, 67 O.O.2d 205, 311 N.E.2d 657; and Proctor v. Giles (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 211, 15 O.O.3d 227, 400 N.E.2d 393. The rule is…