Legal Opinion · Dissent

Fisher v. Mayfield

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 8, 1987No. 86-1094Published

1DissentMoyer, C.J.

I respectfully dissent from the opinion of the majority because it ignores the plain meaning of R.C. 4123.519. This statute provides:

“Notice of appeal shall state the names of the claimant and the employer, the number of the claim, the date of the decision appealed from, and the fact that the appellant appeals therefrom.” (Emphasis added.)

The word “shall” has been consistently interpreted to make the provision in which it is contained mandatory, unless there appears a clear and unequivocal intent that it receive a construction other than its ordinary meaning. Dorrian v. Scioto Conserv. Dist.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy DistrictOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Wachendorf v. ShaverOhio Supreme Court · 1948
  3. State ex rel. Ewing v. A Motion Picture Film Entitled "Without A Stitch"Ohio Supreme Court · 1974
  4. State ex rel. Hanley v. RobertsOhio Supreme Court · 1985
  5. Malloy v. City of WestlakeOhio Supreme Court · 1977

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API