(A) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by a decision of the reclamation commission may appeal to the court of appeals for the county in which the activity addressed by the decision of the commission occurred, is occurring, or will occur, which court has exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal. The appeal shall be filed within thirty days of issuance of the decision of the commission. The court shall confine its review to the record certified by the commission. The court may, upon motion, grant such temporary relief as it considers appropriate pending final disposition of the appeal if all of the following apply:
(1) All parties to the appeal have been notified and given an opportunity to be heard on a request for temporary relief.
(2) The person requesting the relief shows that there is a substantial likelihood that the person will prevail on the merits.
(3) The relief will not adversely affect public health or safety or the health or safety of miners or cause significant imminent environmental harm to land, air, or water resources.
The court shall affirm the decision of the commission unless the court determines that it is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law, in which case the court shall vacate the decision and remand to the commission for such further proceedings as it may direct.
(B) Any order of the chief of the division of mineral resources management adopting a rule shall be subject to judicial review in the Franklin county court of appeals, which court has exclusive original jurisdiction to review the order. A petition for review of the order shall be filed within thirty days from the date of such order. The petition may be made by any person who participated in the rule-making proceedings and who is aggrieved by the order. The court shall confine its review to the record of the rule-making proceedings. The order shall be affirmed unless the court concludes that the order is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law, in which case the court shall vacate the order or portion thereof and remand to the chief for such further proceedings as it may direct.
Quality Ready Mix, Inc. v. Mamone, 520 N.E.2d 193 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 5ד) R.C. 1513.14 provides: “(A) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by a decision of the reclamation board of review may appeal to the court of appeals for the county in which the activity addressed by the decision of the board occurred, is occurring, or will occur, which…”
Citizens Organized Against Longwalling v. Div. of Reclamation, 535 N.E.2d 687 (Ohio Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 4דAppellant Citizens Organized Against Longwalling, a group of landowners affected by in-tervenor Southern Ohio Coal Company’s mining activities, brings this appeal pursuant to R.C. 1513.14 from a November 8, 1985 Ohio Reclamation Board of Review decision which affirmed a June 11,…”
Dressler Coal Corp. v. Call, 446 N.E.2d 785 (Ohio Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2דR.C. 1513.14 provides for appeal of the order of the Reclamation Board of Review to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which was done by Dressier in each instance.”
Combs v. Oxford Mining Co., 2020 Ohio 876 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 7ד{¶6} Appellants did not exercise their statutory right to appeal the Commission’s findings to this Court pursuant to R.C. 1513.14. Rather, on December 6, 2017, appellants Combs and McGuinness, as well as appellant Karena Combs, appellant Combs’ minor daughter, appellant Sandra…”
Vill. of Pleasant City v. Div. of Reclamation, 67 Ohio St. 3d 312 (Ohio 1993). “R.C. 1513.14 provides: “The court shall affirm the decision of the board unless the court determines that it is arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise inconsistent with law, in which case the court shall vacate the decision and remand to the board for such further proceedings as it…”
Paul Adams Coal Co. v. Mamone, 546 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2דThis is an appeal pursuant to R.C. 1513.14 from a Reclamation Board of Review decision, dated March 25, 1987, vacating Notice of Violation 14177.”
Simpson v. Ohio Div. of Mines & Reclamation, 764 N.E.2d 1059 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Because Simpson’s appeal arises from a decision of the Reclamation Commission, the standard of review applicable to decisions from that body is set forth in R.C. 1513.14(A). That section recites: ; “(A) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by a decision of the reclamation…”
Evangelinos v. Ohio Div. of Reclamation, 691 N.E.2d 365 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2דPursuant to R.C. 1513.14 and App.R. 4(A), intervenor and appellant filed these timely appeals on May 18,1995 and May 22,1995, respectively.”
Buckeye Forest Council, Inc. v. Div. of Mineral Resources Mgmt., 875 N.E.2d 631 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3ד{¶ 13} “An appellate court reviews the decision of the Board of Commissioners under the limited standard set forth in R.C. 1513.14. Pleasant City v. Ohio Dept.”
Beam v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 142 Ohio App. 3d 793 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 11דSecond, it provides that an appeal may be first brought to the court of common pleas rather than to the appellate court, as required by R.C. 1513.14. These two specific diversions from R.”
Paul Adams Coal Co. v. Mamone, 546 N.E.2d 454 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “This is an appeal pursuant to R.C. 1513.14 from a Reclamation Board of Review decision, dated March 25, 1987, vacating Notice of Violation 14177.”
Simpson v. Ohio Div. of Mines & Reclamation, 764 N.E.2d 1059 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Because Simpson’s appeal arises from a decision of the Reclamation Commission, the standard of review applicable to decisions from that body is set forth in R.C. 1513.14(A). That section recites: ; “(A) Any party aggrieved or adversely affected by a decision of the reclamation…”
Beam v. State Dep't of Nat. Resources, 142 Ohio App. 3d 793 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Second, it provides that an appeal may be first brought to the court of common pleas rather than to the appellate court, as required by R.C. 1513.14. These two specific diversions from R.”
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.