Wycuff v. Fotomat Corp.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellants’ sole contention is that the time prescribed in R. C. 4141.28 for appealing the decision of the administrator on reconsideration is “determined from the date such decision is mailed,” and that appellee’s *197appeal was not timely filed, because it was filed more than len days after the decision on reconsideration was “mailed” to appellee.
The burden of showing when the rehearing decision of the administrator was mailed was on the public agency. Here, no proof was established to show when that decision was actually deposited in the mail.
This court reaffirms its position in King v. Garnes…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- King v. GarnesOhio Supreme Court · 1973
3Cited by8 opinions
- McCruter v. Board of ReviewOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Proctor v. GilesOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Geroc v. Ohio Veterinary Medical BoardOhio Court of Appeals · 1987
- Abraitis v. TestaOhio Supreme Court · 2013
- Village of Moscow v. Ohio Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewClermont County Court of Common Pleas · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.