Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 119
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 119.06 (2026)

Adjudication order of agency valid and effective - hearings - periodic registration of licenses

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 3, 2023
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 33 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

No adjudication order of an agency shall be valid unless the agency is specifically authorized by law to make such order.

No adjudication order shall be valid unless an opportunity for a hearing is afforded in accordance with sections 119.01 to 119.13 of the Revised Code. Such opportunity for a hearing shall be given before making the adjudication order except in those situations where this section provides otherwise.

The following adjudication orders shall be effective without a hearing:

(A) Orders revoking a license in cases where an agency is required by statute to revoke a license pursuant to the judgment of a court;

(B) Orders suspending a license where a statute specifically permits the suspension of a license without a hearing;

(C) Orders or decisions of an authority within an agency if the rules of the agency or the statutes pertaining to such agency specifically give a right of appeal to a higher authority within such agency, to another agency, or to the board of tax appeals, and also give the appellant a right to a hearing on such appeal.

When a statute permits the suspension of a license without a prior hearing, any agency issuing an order pursuant to such statute shall afford the person to whom the order is issued a hearing upon request.

Whenever an agency claims that a person is required by statute to obtain a license, it shall afford a hearing upon the request of a person who claims that the law does not impose such a requirement.

Every agency shall afford a hearing upon the request of any person who has been refused admission to an examination where such examination is a prerequisite to the issuance of a license unless a hearing was held prior to such refusal.

Unless a hearing was held prior to the refusal to issue the license, every agency shall afford a hearing upon the request of a person whose application for a license has been rejected and to whom the agency has refused to issue a license, whether it is a renewal or a new license, except that the following are not required to afford a hearing to a person to whom a new license has been refused because the person failed a licensing examination: the state medical board, state chiropractic board, architects board, Ohio landscape architects board, and any section of the Ohio occupational therapy, physical therapy, and athletic trainers board.

When periodic registration of licenses is required by law, the agency shall afford a hearing upon the request of any licensee whose registration has been denied, unless a hearing was held prior to such denial.

When periodic registration of licenses or renewal of licenses is required by law, a licensee who has filed an application for registration or renewal within the time and in the manner provided by statute or rule of the agency shall not be required to discontinue a licensed business or profession merely because of the failure of the agency to act on the licensee's application. An agency's rejection of an application for registration or renewal shall not be effective until the fifteenth day after the notice of the rejection is mailed to the licensee.

Last updated September 6, 2023 at 4:16 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 83 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Clayton v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-643, 62 N.E.3d 132.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Clayton v. Ohio Bd. of Nursing (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-643, 62 N.E.3d 132. · cites it 21× “02; R.C. 119.06 et seq. {¶ 29} For parties in Clayton’s position, an agency is required by R.”
Wee Care Child Ctr., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2014-Ohio-2913. · cites it 14× “ODJFS believed Wee Care could continue to operate under R.C. 119.06 until ODJFS took such action.”
Chirila v. Ohio State Chiropractic Bd., 763 N.E.2d 1192 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2001). · cites it 4× “07 *594 requires that notice of an opportunity to request a hearing be provided by the agency and describes what information must be contained in the notice: “Except when a statute prescribes a notice and the persons to whom it shall be given, in all cases in which section 119.”
City of Solon v. Solon Baptist Temple, Inc., 457 N.E.2d 858 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1982). · cites it 4× “This conclusion is reinforced by the language of R.C. 119.06: “No adjudication order shall be valid unless an opportunity for a hearing is afforded in accordance with sections 119.”
Cowans v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 2014-Ohio-1811, 11 N.E.3d 1215. · cites it 8× “07 only apply in cases where R.C. 119.06 mandates an opportunity for hearing before the issuance of an order.”
Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. Hodges, 138 F. Supp. 3d 948 (S.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 13× “Ohio Rev. Code § 119.06. A hearing is not required for orders “suspending a license where a statute specifically permits the suspension of a license without a hearing.”
One Energy Ents., L.L.C. v. Dept. of Transp., 2019-Ohio-359. · cites it 3× “ODOT asserted appellants had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, explaining that "if a permit(s) [was] denied" under the OAPA, appellants could request a hearing pursuant to R.C. 119.06 and could appeal any ruling from such hearing to the common pleas court under R.”
Crawford-Cole v. Lucas Cnty. Dep't of Job & Fam. Servs., 2009-Ohio-1355, 121 Ohio St. 3d 560. · cites it 5× “{¶ 29} It is the second part of the chapter, R.C. 119.06 to 119.13, that concerns agency adjudications and the procedures for notice, hearing, and appeal of those decisions.”
Women's Med. Prof'l Corp. Martin Haskell v. J. Nick Baird, 438 F.3d 595 (6th Cir. 2006). “The denial of a license application entitles the clinic to an administrative hearing, Ohio Rev.Code § 119.06, a hearing complete with a right to notice as well as the opportunity to be represented by counsel, to present evidence and to examine witnesses appearing *613 for and…”
Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio, 545 N.E.2d 1260 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 2× “R.C. 119.06 provides that “[n]o adjudication order shall be valid unless an opportunity for a hearing is afforded in accordance with sections 119.”
Williams v. Dollison, 405 N.E.2d 714 (Ohio 1980). · cites it 2× “062 provides, as follows: “Notwithstanding section 119.06 of the Revised Code, the registrar of motor vehicles is not required to hold any hearing in connection with an order revoking or suspending a motor vehicle operator’s license pursuant to section 4507.”
Rossford Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 544 N.E.2d 651 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 3× “” R.C. 119.06 provides in part: “* * * No adjudication order shall be valid unless an opportunity for a hearing is afforded in accordance with sections 119.”
Show all 83 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 119.06(A): 1 case
Women's Med Ctr. of Dayton v. Dept. of Health, 2019-Ohio-1146.
Ohio Rev. Code § 119.06(B): 3 cases
Planned Parenthood Sw. Ohio Region v. Hodges, 138 F. Supp. 3d 948 (S.D. Ohio 2015). “Ohio Rev. Code § 119.06. A hearing is not required for orders “suspending a license where a statute specifically permits the suspension of a license without a hearing.”
City of Toledo v. Bernoir, 247 N.E.2d 740 (Ohio 1969).
Bayside Nursing Ctr. v. Ohio Dep't of Health, 645 N.E.2d 1314 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1994).
Ohio Rev. Code § 119.06(C): 3 cases
Wee Care Child Ctr., Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2014-Ohio-2913. “ODJFS believed Wee Care could continue to operate under R.C. 119.06 until ODJFS took such action.”
Cowans v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 2014-Ohio-1811, 11 N.E.3d 1215. “07 only apply in cases where R.C. 119.06 mandates an opportunity for hearing before the issuance of an order.”
D.L. Lack Corp. v. Comm'n, 944 N.E.2d 746 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.