Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2506
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03 (2026)

Hearing

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
August 17, 2006
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 23 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) The hearing of an appeal taken in relation to a final order, adjudication, or decision covered by division (A) of section 2506.01 of the Revised Code shall proceed as in the trial of a civil action, but the court shall be confined to the transcript filed under section 2506.02 of the Revised Code unless it appears, on the face of that transcript or by affidavit filed by the appellant, that one of the following applies:

(1) The transcript does not contain a report of all evidence admitted or proffered by the appellant.

(2) The appellant was not permitted to appear and be heard in person, or by the appellant's attorney, in opposition to the final order, adjudication, or decision, and to do any of the following:

(a) Present the appellant's position, arguments, and contentions;

(b) Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support;

(c) Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute the appellant's position, arguments, and contentions;

(d) Offer evidence to refute evidence and testimony offered in opposition to the appellant's position, arguments, and contentions;

(e) Proffer any such evidence into the record, if the admission of it is denied by the officer or body appealed from.

(3) The testimony adduced was not given under oath.

(4) The appellant was unable to present evidence by reason of a lack of the power of subpoena by the officer or body appealed from, or the refusal, after request, of that officer or body to afford the appellant opportunity to use the power of subpoena when possessed by the officer or body.

(5) The officer or body failed to file with the transcript conclusions of fact supporting the final order, adjudication, or decision.

(B) If any circumstance described in divisions (A)(1) to (5) of this section applies, the court shall hear the appeal upon the transcript and additional evidence as may be introduced by any party. At the hearing, any party may call, as if on cross-examination, any witness who previously gave testimony in opposition to that party.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 309 cases (45 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: Aria's Way, L.L.C. v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 877 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Aria's Way, L.L.C. v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 877 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 20× “At issue is whether appellant was entitled to a hearing under R.C. 2506.03 to present additional evidence in support of its variance request and whether the trial court erred in affirming the BZA’s decision.”
Green Vision Materials, Inc. v. Newbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2014 Ohio 4290 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 29× “Thereafter, the court entered judgment denying appellant’s request for a hearing because none of the provisions in R.C. 2506.03 were triggered, at least one of which is required for the trial 4 court to hold a hearing.”
City of Cleveland v. Posner, 951 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 20× “” {¶ 11} Although hard to discern from his brief, we believe that defendant’s allegations of due process violations are twofold: 1 First, the evidence against him consisted of unauthenticated documents, was based on hearsay, and/or failed “to meet the requirements for admission…”
Robinson v. Springfield Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 759 N.E.2d 444 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “Robinson made several motions to the common pleas court to strike the record and to permit him to present additional evidence, pursuant to R.C. 2506.03, because he had not been allowed to present or cross-examine witnesses before the board.”
Brenneman Bros. v. Allen Cty. Commrs., 2013 Ohio 4635 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “{¶12} On September 21, 2012, the Brennemans moved the trial court to “permit additional evidence to be entered into the record * * * pursuant to R.C. 2506.03,” arguing that the transcript filed in the trial court by the Board did not contain a report of all evidence admitted or…”
City of Dayton v. Whiting, 673 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “R.C. 2506.03 provides as follows: “(A) The hearing of such appeal shall proceed as in the trial of a civil action, but the court shall be confined to the transcript as filed pursuant to section *119 2506.”
Neague v. Worthington City Sch. Dist., 702 N.E.2d 107 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 14× “On February 5, 1996, the Neagues filed their brief and a motion for a full evidentiary hearing pursuant to R.C. 2506.03. Attached was Ms. Neague’s affidavit and certain other documents relating to Jonathan’s condition and ADHD in general.”
Shields v. City of Englewood, 876 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 5× “’ ” {¶ 13} R.C. 2506.03 provides the procedure that is to be employed by a trial court in conducting an appeal of an administrative decision: {¶ 14} “The hearing of an appeal taken in relation to a final order, adjudication, or decision covered by division (A) of section 2506.”
AT&T Commc'ns of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch, 2012 Ohio 1975 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 4× “{¶ 11} Citing R.C. 2506.03, the administrator asserts that the appeal of an administrative decision to a common pleas court is more akin to a trial, where “the entire matter is tried anew,” than to an appeal (“The hearing of an [administrative] appeal shall proceed as in the…”
Koach v. City of Shaker Heights, 2017 Ohio 5748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 28× “{¶ 11} On July 5, 2016, the City filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the trial court's order "misinterpreted the Brookside case," and effectively nullifies every decision of the City's Board of Appeals * * * while giving no direction as to how the City's Board can, in…”
In Re Petition for Annexation of 162.631 Acres, 556 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 8× “If the court of common pleas denied appellants’ R.C. 2506.03 motion, then the court committed reversible error.”
City of Cleveland v. City of Fairview Park, 545 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “Appellant argues under this assignment of error that the trial court should have held a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2506.03, and allowed the appellant to cross-examine the persons whose affidavits were considered by the board.”
Show all 309 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(2) — 1 case
Elbert v. Bexley Plan. Comm'n, 670 N.E.2d 245 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A) — 60 cases
MacDonald v. Shaker Hts. Bd. of Income Tax Rev. (Slip Opinion), 2015 Ohio 3290 (Ohio 2015).
Lupo v. Columbus, 2014 Ohio 2792 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Green Vision Materials, Inc. v. Newbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2014 Ohio 4290 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Thereafter, the court entered judgment denying appellant’s request for a hearing because none of the provisions in R.C. 2506.03 were triggered, at least one of which is required for the trial 4 court to hold a hearing.”
Hirsi v. Franklin Cty. Dept. Job & Fam. Servs., 2014 Ohio 1804 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
City of Cleveland v. Posner, 951 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “” {¶ 11} Although hard to discern from his brief, we believe that defendant’s allegations of due process violations are twofold: 1 First, the evidence against him consisted of unauthenticated documents, was based on hearsay, and/or failed “to meet the requirements for admission…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(1) — 31 cases
Penfield Twp. v. Shrader, 2022 Ohio 2258 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Green Vision Materials, Inc. v. Newbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2014 Ohio 4290 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Thereafter, the court entered judgment denying appellant’s request for a hearing because none of the provisions in R.C. 2506.03 were triggered, at least one of which is required for the trial 4 court to hold a hearing.”
State ex rel. Vill. of Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 775 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio 2002).
State ex rel. Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2002 Ohio 4906 (Ohio 2002).
Brenneman Bros. v. Allen Cty. Commrs., 2013 Ohio 4635 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶12} On September 21, 2012, the Brennemans moved the trial court to “permit additional evidence to be entered into the record * * * pursuant to R.C. 2506.03,” arguing that the transcript filed in the trial court by the Board did not contain a report of all evidence admitted or…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(1)(c) — 1 case
Neague v. Worthington City Sch. Dist., 702 N.E.2d 107 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “On February 5, 1996, the Neagues filed their brief and a motion for a full evidentiary hearing pursuant to R.C. 2506.03. Attached was Ms. Neague’s affidavit and certain other documents relating to Jonathan’s condition and ADHD in general.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(2) — 6 cases
Shields v. City of Englewood, 876 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “’ ” {¶ 13} R.C. 2506.03 provides the procedure that is to be employed by a trial court in conducting an appeal of an administrative decision: {¶ 14} “The hearing of an appeal taken in relation to a final order, adjudication, or decision covered by division (A) of section 2506.”
One Neighborhood Condo. Assn. v. Columbus Dept. of Pub. Util., Div. of Water, 2017 Ohio 4195 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
State ex rel. Unterbrink v. Elida Local Schs. Bd. of Edn., 2020 Ohio 5378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Niedziewcki v. Swancreek Water Dist., 2018 Ohio 2865 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Brinson v. Akron Hous. Appeals Bd., 2017 Ohio 7687 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(2)(a) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Unterbrink v. Elida Local Schs. Bd. of Edn., 2020 Ohio 5378 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Ney v. Schley, 2021 Ohio 1848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
State ex rel. Perkins v. City of Cincinnati, 946 N.E.2d 272 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(2)(b) — 2 cases
Green Vision Materials, Inc. v. Newbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2014 Ohio 4290 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Thereafter, the court entered judgment denying appellant’s request for a hearing because none of the provisions in R.C. 2506.03 were triggered, at least one of which is required for the trial 4 court to hold a hearing.”
Ney v. Schley, 2021 Ohio 1848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(2)(c) — 3 cases
Green Vision Materials, Inc. v. Newbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2014 Ohio 4290 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Thereafter, the court entered judgment denying appellant’s request for a hearing because none of the provisions in R.C. 2506.03 were triggered, at least one of which is required for the trial 4 court to hold a hearing.”
Piqua Store & Lock, L.L.C. v. Miami Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2023 Ohio 1403 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
6957 Ridge Rd., L.L.C. v. Parma Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2013 Ohio 4028 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(2)(d) — 2 cases
Galli v. City of Columbus Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 952 N.E.2d 525 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
Ruslan, Inc. v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Health Dept., 2014 Ohio 3853 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(2)(e) — 1 case
Ney v. Schley, 2021 Ohio 1848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(3) — 15 cases
Shields v. City of Englewood, 876 N.E.2d 972 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “’ ” {¶ 13} R.C. 2506.03 provides the procedure that is to be employed by a trial court in conducting an appeal of an administrative decision: {¶ 14} “The hearing of an appeal taken in relation to a final order, adjudication, or decision covered by division (A) of section 2506.”
State ex rel. 506 Phelps Holdings, L.L.C. v. Cincinnati Union Bethel, 2013 Ohio 388 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
Dickson & Campbell, L.L.C. v. City of Cleveland, 908 N.E.2d 964 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Ivkovich v. City of Steubenville, 759 N.E.2d 434 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001).
Zannieri v. Norwalk Bd. of Bldg. & Zoning Appeals, 656 N.E.2d 711 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(4) — 1 case
Cleveland v. Cord, 2011 Ohio 4262 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(A)(5) — 31 cases
Aria's Way, L.L.C. v. Concord Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 877 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). “At issue is whether appellant was entitled to a hearing under R.C. 2506.03 to present additional evidence in support of its variance request and whether the trial court erred in affirming the BZA’s decision.”
Koach v. City of Shaker Heights, 2017 Ohio 5748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 11} On July 5, 2016, the City filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the trial court's order "misinterpreted the Brookside case," and effectively nullifies every decision of the City's Board of Appeals * * * while giving no direction as to how the City's Board can, in…”
Eckert v. Warren Cty. Rural Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2018 Ohio 4384 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Niedziewcki v. Swancreek Water Dist., 2018 Ohio 2865 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018).
Leist v. Mad River Twp. Bd. of Trs., 2016 Ohio 2960 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(B) — 25 cases
Green Vision Materials, Inc. v. Newbury Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2014 Ohio 4290 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “Thereafter, the court entered judgment denying appellant’s request for a hearing because none of the provisions in R.C. 2506.03 were triggered, at least one of which is required for the trial 4 court to hold a hearing.”
Posner v. Cleveland, 2011 Ohio 3071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
City of Cleveland v. Posner, 951 N.E.2d 476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “” {¶ 11} Although hard to discern from his brief, we believe that defendant’s allegations of due process violations are twofold: 1 First, the evidence against him consisted of unauthenticated documents, was based on hearsay, and/or failed “to meet the requirements for admission…”
Koach v. City of Shaker Heights, 2017 Ohio 5748 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 11} On July 5, 2016, the City filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing the trial court's order "misinterpreted the Brookside case," and effectively nullifies every decision of the City's Board of Appeals * * * while giving no direction as to how the City's Board can, in…”
Brenneman Bros. v. Allen Cty. Commrs., 2013 Ohio 4635 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶12} On September 21, 2012, the Brennemans moved the trial court to “permit additional evidence to be entered into the record * * * pursuant to R.C. 2506.03,” arguing that the transcript filed in the trial court by the Board did not contain a report of all evidence admitted or…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(B)(3) — 1 case
City of Cleveland v. City of Fairview Park, 545 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “Appellant argues under this assignment of error that the trial court should have held a hearing pursuant to R.C. 2506.03, and allowed the appellant to cross-examine the persons whose affidavits were considered by the board.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2506.03(E) — 2 cases
3910 Warrensville Ctr., Inc. v. City of Warrensville Heights, 485 N.E.2d 824 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).
Wahle v. Dep't of Indus. Relations, 470 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983).
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.