plain language rule in Ohio

2002See Cecil , supra .

2001See Cottrill , supra .

2008Maryhew v. Yova (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 157 , 11 OBR 471, 464 N.E.2d 538 ; Haley v. Hanna (1915), 93 Ohio St. 49 , 52, 112 N.E. 149 . {¶ 23} In this regard, the Civil Rules are not just a technicality, and we may not ignore the plain language of a rule in order to assist a party who has failed to comply with a rule’s specific requirements.

2008Maryhew v. Yova (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 157 , 11 OBR 471, 464 N.E.2d 538 ; Haley v. Hanna (1915), 93 Ohio St. 49 , 52, 112 N.E. 149 . {¶ 23} In this regard, the Civil Rules are not just a technicality, and we may not ignore the plain language of a rule in order to assist a party who has failed to comply with a rule’s specific requirements.

2018Co. v. Walker , 29 Ohio St.2d 173 , 181, 281 N.E.2d 1 (1972) (finding that deference is afforded to an administrative agency's interpretation of its own rules and regulations if such an interpretation is consistent with statutory law and the plain language of the rule itself). {¶ 13} A court of appeals' review is more limited, determining only whether the court of common pleas abused its discretion in finding that the decision of the administrative agency was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

2018Co. v. Walker , 29 Ohio St.2d 173 , 181, 281 N.E.2d 1 (1972) (finding that deference is afforded to an administrative agency's interpretation of its own rules and regulations if such an interpretation is consistent with statutory law and the plain language of the rule itself). {¶ 13} A court of appeals' review is more limited, determining only whether the court of common pleas abused its discretion in finding that the decision of the administrative agency was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

2026Her motion stated that she served Appellant via regular U.S. mail on June 29, 2022, approximately 20 days prior to filing her motion with the trial court. {¶45} Civil Rule 5(D) states, “Any paper after the complaint that is required to be served shall be filed with the court within three days after service.” {¶46} The Supreme Court of Ohio has found, “[t]he Civil Rules are not just a technicality, and we may not ignore the plain language of a rule in order to assist a party who has failed to comply with a rule's specific requirements.” Laneve v. Atlas Recycling, 119 Ohio St.3d 324, 329 (2008).

2021LaNeve v. Atlas Recycling, Inc., 119 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2008-Ohio-3921 , 894 N.E.2d 25 , ¶ 23. “[T]he Civil Rules are not just a technicality, and we may not ignore the plain language of a rule in order to assist a party who has failed to comply with a rule’s specific requirements.” Id.

2009Big Bob's, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. , 151 Ohio App.3d 498 , 2003-Ohio-418 , 784 N.E.2d 753 , at ¶ 15. {¶ 26} Further, all reviewing courts must give due deference to "an administrative agency's interpretation of its own rules and regulations if such an interpretation is consistent with statutory law and the plain language of the rule itself." OPUS III-VII Corp. v. Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 102 , 113 , 671 N.E.2d 1087 , citing Jones Metal Products Co. v. Walker (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 173 , 181 , 58 O.O.2d 393 , 281 N.E.2d 1 .

2009Big Bob's, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm. , 151 Ohio App.3d 498 , 2003-Ohio-418 , 784 N.E.2d 753 , at ¶ 15. {¶ 26} Further, all reviewing courts must give due deference to "an administrative agency's interpretation of its own rules and regulations if such an interpretation is consistent with statutory law and the plain language of the rule itself." OPUS III-VII Corp. v. Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 102 , 113 , 671 N.E.2d 1087 , citing Jones Metal Products Co. v. Walker (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 173 , 181 , 58 O.O.2d 393 , 281 N.E.2d 1 .

2006R. 60(B)(1), by the plain language of the rule, must be filed within one year and within a reasonable time." Id., citing Adomeit , 39 Ohio App.2d at 106 .

2006R. 60(B)(1), by the plain language of the rule, must be filed within one year and within a reasonable time." Id., citing Adomeit , 39 Ohio App.2d at 106 .

2026“Proper service under the civil rules is mandatory even if a party represented by counsel might otherwise learn of the action taken by the court.” Parallel Homes, L.L.C. v. Stephens, 2014-Ohio-840, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.); Yost v. McNea, 2021-Ohio-2145, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.). {¶10} Generally, service of process that is reasonably calculated to reach the interested parties is “constitutionally sound.” Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth. v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St.2d 403, 406 (1980).

2026“Proper service under the civil rules is mandatory even if a party represented by counsel might otherwise learn of the action taken by the court.” Parallel Homes, L.L.C. v. Stephens, 2014-Ohio-840, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.); Yost v. McNea, 2021-Ohio-2145, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.). {¶10} Generally, service of process that is reasonably calculated to reach the interested parties is “constitutionally sound.” Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth. v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St.2d 403, 406 (1980).

2026See also State v. C.C., 2019- Ohio-4881, ¶ 5 (9th Dist.), quoting State v. Hitsman, 2018-Ohio-5315, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.), citing State v. Kolat, 2002-Ohio-4699 , ¶ 16 (11th Dist.), citing State v. Abercrombie, 2002- Ohio-2414, ¶ 18 (12th Dist.) (“A motion that tests the sufficiency of the evidence ‘cannot properly be made until, at the earliest, the conclusion of the state’s case in chief and pursuant to a Crim.R. 29(A) motion.’ ”). {¶ 22} In this case, the state affirmatively indicated on the record that it had rested its case without making any exception as to Count 7 and went through each of it

2026“Proper service under the civil rules is mandatory even if a party represented by counsel might otherwise learn of the action taken by the court.” Parallel Homes, L.L.C. v. Stephens, 2014-Ohio-840, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.); Yost v. McNea, 2021-Ohio-2145, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.). {¶10} Generally, service of process that is reasonably calculated to reach the interested parties is “constitutionally sound.” Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth. v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St.2d 403, 406 (1980).

2025See In re Adoption of L.R.B., 2018-Ohio-1489, ¶ 28 (9th Dist.).

2025“Prejudice must be established ‘“on the face of the record.”’” Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 24 , quoting Hayward v. Summa Health Sys./Akron City Hosp., 2014-Ohio-1913, ¶ 26 , quoting Wagner v. Roche Laboratories, 85 Ohio St.3d 457, 462 (1999).

2024The court in Hall quoted from a prior opinion: "'Although courts should strive to hear cases on their merits whenever possible, "the Civil Rules are not just a technicality, and we may not ignore the plain language of a rule in order to assist a party who has failed to comply with a rule's specific requirements."'" Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Suiter v. Karimiam, 2015-Ohio-3330, ¶ 24 (9th Dist.), quoting LaNeve v. Atlas Recycling, Inc., 2008-Ohio-3921 , ¶ 23. {¶ 23} Perhaps in the future the legislature will amend R.C. 2305.113(B) to include commercial carrier service, but until that time comes, we fi

2024The court in Hall quoted from a prior opinion: "'Although courts should strive to hear cases on their merits whenever possible, "the Civil Rules are not just a technicality, and we may not ignore the plain language of a rule in order to assist a party who has failed to comply with a rule's specific requirements."'" Id. at ¶ 17, quoting Stark County, Case No. 2024 CA 00063 10 Suiter v. Karimiam, 2015-Ohio-3330 , ¶ 24 (9th Dist.), quoting LaNeve v. Atlas Recycling, Inc., 2008-Ohio-3921 , ¶ 23. {¶ 23} Perhaps in the future the legislature will amend R.C. 2305.113(B) to include commercial carrier

2023Clark No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900 , ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 11 (8th Ed.2004). {¶21} Crim.R. 32(A)(1) requires that the trial court, at sentencing, “[a]fford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and address the defendant personally and ask if he or she wishes to make a statement in his or her own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment.” “The plain language of the rule imposes a mandatory duty upon the trial court to unambiguously address the defendant and provide him or her with the opportunity to speak before sentencing.” State v. Brow

2023Clark No. 09-CA-54, 2010-Ohio-1900 , ¶ 62, quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 11 (8th Ed.2004). {¶21} Crim.R. 32(A)(1) requires that the trial court, at sentencing, “[a]fford counsel an opportunity to speak on behalf of the defendant and address the defendant personally and ask if he or she wishes to make a statement in his or her own behalf or present any information in mitigation of punishment.” “The plain language of the rule imposes a mandatory duty upon the trial court to unambiguously address the defendant and provide him or her with the opportunity to speak before sentencing.” State v. Brow

2023No. 08AP-71, 2008-Ohio-4422, ¶ 13 (“Although the trial court must necessarily weigh the evidence presented to the administrative agency and, to a limited extent, may re-evaluate the credibility of the evidence, it must give due deference to the administrative determination of conflicting testimony, including the resolution of credibility conflicts.”). {¶ 30} With respect to deference to ODNR’s interpretation of its own regulations, the common pleas court stated that courts typically defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules and regulations when that interpretation is consistent with

2022Hancock Nos. 5-03-38 and 5-03-39, 2004-Ohio-2915, ¶ 8-13 ; State v. Orwick, 153 Ohio App.3d 65 , 2003-Ohio-2682, ¶ 14-15 (3d Dist.) (conducting an unnecessary interpretation of the plain language of the exception to reach the same conclusion).

2022Hancock Nos. 5-03-38 and 5-03-39, 2004-Ohio-2915, ¶ 8-13 ; State v. Orwick, 153 Ohio App.3d 65 , 2003-Ohio-2682, ¶ 14-15 (3d Dist.) (conducting an unnecessary interpretation of the plain language of the exception to reach the same conclusion).

2021See id. {¶20} The lower court also denied Ms. Bardwell-Patino’s request for a filing extension because it determined that she had received service of the magistrate’s decision/judgment entry.