quasi-judicial hearing in Ohio

2008Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 69, 72 , 647 N.E.2d 769 (prohibition will not issue to prevent a board of elections from conducting an election, because the board was not required to hold a quasi-judicial hearing). {¶ 9} Similarly, the city council here enacted Ordinance No. 1319-08, which provided for the submission of the proposed charter amendment to the electorate, and no statute or other law required the board to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on Wright’s protest challenging the ordinance.

2008Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 69, 72 , 647 N.E.2d 769 (prohibition will not issue to prevent a board of elections from conducting an election, because the board was not required to hold a quasi-judicial hearing). {¶ 9} Similarly, the city council here enacted Ordinance No. 1319-08, which provided for the submission of the proposed charter amendment to the electorate, and no statute or other law required the board to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on Wright’s protest challenging the ordinance.

2024Bd. of Elections, 159 Ohio St.3d 50 , 2019-Ohio-4277 , 147 N.E.3d 595 , ¶ 12 (R.C. 3501.39 requires a quasi-judicial hearing on a protest to a referendum petition). {¶ 22} To obtain a writ of mandamus, relators must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to have the board remove the zoning- amendment referendum from the ballot, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the board to do so, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

2024Bd. of Elections, 159 Ohio St.3d 50 , 2019-Ohio-4277 , 147 N.E.3d 595 , ¶ 12 (R.C. 3501.39 requires a quasi-judicial hearing on a protest to a referendum petition). {¶ 22} To obtain a writ of mandamus, relators must establish by clear and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to have the board remove the zoning- amendment referendum from the ballot, (2) a clear legal duty on the part of the board to do so, and (3) the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.

2005Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 289, 290-291 , 649 N.E.2d 1205 (mandamus will not lie to enjoin a board of elections from placing an issue on election ballot when the board has conducted a quasi-judicial hearing pursuant to R.C. 3501.39 on protest against initiative petition).

2005Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 289, 290-291 , 649 N.E.2d 1205 (mandamus will not lie to enjoin a board of elections from placing an issue on election ballot when the board has conducted a quasi-judicial hearing pursuant to R.C. 3501.39 on protest against initiative petition).

2024Bd. of Revision, 1998-Ohio-445 .

2024Bd. of Revision, 1998-Ohio-445.

2023As we held in King, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3668 , __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 20, that process did not trigger any obligation for the board to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing under R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) or (2). {¶ 20} As for the mayoral-recall issue, the board scheduled a recall election under Section 54 of the East Cleveland Charter after Brewer notified the board that 8 January Term, 2023 a sufficient petition to recall King as mayor had been filed under Section 53 of the city charter.

2023As this court explained in denying a writ of prohibition in King, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2023-Ohio-3668 , __ N.E.3d __, “ ‘extraordinary relief in prohibition is not available when there is no statute or other law requiring a board of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on a protest,’ ” (emphasis added in King) id. at ¶ 18, quoting Fritz, 165 Ohio St.3d 323 , 2021-Ohio-1828 , 179 N.E.3d 67, at ¶ 10 ; see also State ex rel.

2023Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86 , 290 N.E.2d 841 (1972), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2023Morrison v. Steiner, 32 Ohio St.2d 86 , 290 N.E.2d 841 (1972), paragraph one of the syllabus.

2022Id. at 352 . {¶27} In Ross, the Ohio Supreme Court, considering a board of elections hearing on an individual’s right to vote, again emphasized that “a quasi-judicial hearing is not a meeting for purposes of this [R.C. 121.22] definition, and hence is not subject to the open meeting requirements.” (Citation omitted.) 125 Ohio St.3d 438 , 2010-Ohio-2167 , 928 N.E.2d 1082, at ¶ 25 . {¶28} Based on this authority, the Gross opinion concluded that the same rationale should apply to the circumstances similar to those here.

2022Id. at 352 . {¶27} In Ross, the Ohio Supreme Court, considering a board of elections hearing on an individual’s right to vote, again emphasized that “a quasi-judicial hearing is not a meeting for purposes of this [R.C. 121.22] definition, and hence is not subject to the open meeting requirements.” (Citation omitted.) 125 Ohio St.3d 438 , 2010-Ohio-2167 , 928 N.E.2d 1082, at ¶ 25 . {¶28} Based on this authority, the Gross opinion concluded that the same rationale should apply to the circumstances similar to those here.

2022Id. at 352 . {¶27} In Ross, the Ohio Supreme Court, considering a board of elections hearing on an individual’s right to vote, again emphasized that “a quasi-judicial hearing is not a meeting for purposes of this [R.C. 121.22] definition, and hence is not subject to the open meeting requirements.” (Citation omitted.) 125 Ohio St.3d 438 , 2010-Ohio-2167 , 928 N.E.2d 1082, at ¶ 25 . {¶28} Based on this authority, the Gross opinion concluded that the same rationale should apply to the circumstances similar to those here.

2019Assn. of Hamilton v. Moser, 40 Ohio St.2d 94 , 320 N.E.2d 672 (1974), rev’g 40 Ohio St.2d 42 , 319 N.E.2d 361 (1974), in which we issued a writ of prohibition to prevent a board of elections from placing a measure on the ballot, even though no protest had been filed, see 40 Ohio St.2d at 43, and therefore the board had never conducted a quasi-judicial hearing.

2019Assn. of Hamilton v. Moser, 40 Ohio St.2d 94 , 320 N.E.2d 672 (1974), rev’g 40 Ohio St.2d 42 , 319 N.E.2d 361 (1974), in which we issued a writ of prohibition to prevent a board of elections from placing a measure on the ballot, even though no protest had been filed, see 40 Ohio St.2d at 43, and therefore the board had never conducted a quasi-judicial hearing.

2019Assn. of Hamilton v. Moser, 40 Ohio St.2d 94 , 320 N.E.2d 672 (1974), rev’g 40 Ohio St.2d 42 , 319 N.E.2d 361 (1974), in which we issued a writ of prohibition to prevent a board of elections from placing a measure on the ballot, even though no protest had been filed, see 40 Ohio St.2d at 43, and therefore the board had never conducted a quasi-judicial hearing.

2019Assn. of Hamilton v. Moser, 40 Ohio St.2d 94 , 320 N.E.2d 672 (1974), rev’g 40 Ohio St.2d 42 , 319 N.E.2d 361 (1974), in which we issued a writ of prohibition to prevent a board of elections from placing a measure on the ballot, even though no protest had been filed, see 40 Ohio St.2d at 43, and therefore the board had never conducted a quasi-judicial hearing.

2019Zeigler v. Zumbar, 129 Ohio St.3d 240 , 2011-Ohio-2939 , 951 N.E.2d 405 , ¶ 21 (“The requirement of conducting a quasi-judicial hearing is the key point of exercising that authority” [emphasis sic]).

2019Zeigler v. Zumbar, 129 Ohio St.3d 240 , 2011-Ohio-2939 , 951 N.E.2d 405 , ¶ 21 (“The requirement of conducting a quasi-judicial hearing is the key point of exercising that authority” [emphasis sic]).

2010For these reasons, the Sunshine Law does not apply to adjudications of disputes in quasi-judicial proceedings, such as at the BTA.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 62 , 689 N.E.2d 32 . {¶ 27} As discussed previously, the board’s hearing on the challenges to Ross’s eligibility to vote pursuant to R.C. 3505.19 and 3503.24(B) was a quasi-judicial hearing rather than a meeting.

2010For these reasons, the Sunshine Law does not apply to adjudications of disputes in quasi-judicial proceedings, such as at the BTA.” (Citations omitted.) Id. at 62 , 689 N.E.2d 32 . {¶ 27} As discussed previously, the board’s hearing on the challenges to Ross’s eligibility to vote pursuant to R.C. 3505.19 and 3503.24(B) was a quasi-judicial hearing rather than a meeting.

2010Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 , 2008-Ohio-2567 , 889 N.E.2d 521, ¶ 34 . *445 {¶ 32} Therefore, because R.C. 121.22 did not apply to the elections board’s quasi-judicial challenge proceeding involving Ross, the board neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded the Sunshine Law by failing to publicly vote on whether to adjourn the public hearing to deliberate and by failing to publicly vote on the challenges following deliberations.

2010Dept. of Children & Family Servs., 118 Ohio St.3d 392 , 2008-Ohio-2567 , 889 N.E.2d 521, ¶ 34 . *445 {¶ 32} Therefore, because R.C. 121.22 did not apply to the elections board’s quasi-judicial challenge proceeding involving Ross, the board neither abused its discretion nor clearly disregarded the Sunshine Law by failing to publicly vote on whether to adjourn the public hearing to deliberate and by failing to publicly vote on the challenges following deliberations.

2010Tremmel, 123 Ohio St.3d 452 , 2009-Ohio-5773 , 917 N.E.2d 792 , ¶ 16; see also Walker, 2008-Ohio-4060 , 2008 WL 3307126 , ¶ 27 (in general, “R.C. 121.22 is not applicable to judicial bodies, or judicial or quasi-judicial functions”); see generally Gotherman, Babbit, and Lang, 1 Local Government Law — Municipal (1st Ed.2004) 163, Section 6.2. {¶ 28} Third, the cases relied on by Ross are distinguishable.

2010Tremmel, 123 Ohio St.3d 452 , 2009-Ohio-5773 , 917 N.E.2d 792 , ¶ 16; see also Walker, 2008-Ohio-4060 , 2008 WL 3307126 , ¶ 27 (in general, “R.C. 121.22 is not applicable to judicial bodies, or judicial or quasi-judicial functions”); see generally Gotherman, Babbit, and Lang, 1 Local Government Law — Municipal (1st Ed.2004) 163, Section 6.2. {¶ 28} Third, the cases relied on by Ross are distinguishable.

2010Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 260 , 2009-Ohio-4980 , 915 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 14 . {¶ 16} Stewart has met the first criterion because R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) and 3513.05 require that the board of elections conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on his protest. “[A] board of elections * * * is a quasi-judicial body when it considers protests.” State ex rel.

2010Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 260 , 2009-Ohio-4980 , 915 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 14 . {¶ 16} Stewart has met the first criterion because R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) and 3513.05 require that the board of elections conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on his protest. “[A] board of elections * * * is a quasi-judicial body when it considers protests.” State ex rel.

2009Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2009-Ohio-3657 , 912 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 14 . {¶ 15} Miller and McCarthy have established the first requirement because “R.C. 3501.39(A)(2) required that the board of elections conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on relators’ protest.” State ex rel.

2009Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St.3d 462 , 2009-Ohio-3657 , 912 N.E.2d 573, ¶ 14 . {¶ 15} Miller and McCarthy have established the first requirement because “R.C. 3501.39(A)(2) required that the board of elections conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on relators’ protest.” State ex rel.

2008Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186 , 718 N.E.2d 908 . {¶ 8} Prohibition will not lie to prevent an action by an election official or board when there is no requirement to hold a quasi-judicial hearing on the matter.

2008Wright v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186 , 718 N.E.2d 908 . {¶ 8} Prohibition will not lie to prevent an action by an election official or board when there is no requirement to hold a quasi-judicial hearing on the matter.

2008Cf. R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) and (2). {¶ 10} As noted previously, “[p]rohibition will not lie to prevent an action by an election official or board when there is no requirement to hold a quasi-judicial hearing on the matter.” Parrott, 117 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2008-Ohio-813 , 882 N.E.2d 908, ¶ 8 , citing Baldzicki, 90 Ohio St.3d at 241-242 , 736 N.E.2d 893 . {¶ 11} In fact, there is no indication that any sworn evidence, testimonial or otherwise, was introduced at the proceeding before the board of elections on the protests.

2008Cf. R.C. 3501.39(A)(1) and (2). {¶ 10} As noted previously, “[p]rohibition will not lie to prevent an action by an election official or board when there is no requirement to hold a quasi-judicial hearing on the matter.” Parrott, 117 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2008-Ohio-813 , 882 N.E.2d 908, ¶ 8 , citing Baldzicki, 90 Ohio St.3d at 241-242 , 736 N.E.2d 893 . {¶ 11} In fact, there is no indication that any sworn evidence, testimonial or otherwise, was introduced at the proceeding before the board of elections on the protests.