If an appeal is taken in relation to a final order, adjudication, or decision covered by division (A) of section 2506.01 of the Revised Code, the court may find that the order, adjudication, or decision is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record. Consistent with its findings, the court may affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the order, adjudication, or decision, or remand the cause to the officer or body appealed from with instructions to enter an order, adjudication, or decision consistent with the findings or opinion of the court. The judgment of the court may be appealed by any party on questions of law as provided in the Rules of Appellate Procedure and, to the extent not in conflict with those rules, Chapter 2505. of the Revised Code.
Shelly Materials, Inc v. Streetsboro Plan. & Zoning Comm. (Slip Opinion), 2019-Ohio-4499, 145 N.E.3d 246. · cites it 10ד] Zoning—Surface mining as a permitted conditional use—Administrative appeals— R.C. 2506.04—Standard of review applicable to court of appeals’ review of decision of common pleas court in R.”
Henley v. City of Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 735 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 9דWe determine that the court of appeals did not exceed the scope of appellate review under R.C. 2506.04 when it reviewed the decision of the common pleas court in this case.”
Indep. v. Off. of the Cuyahoga Cty. Exec. (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-4650, 28 N.E.3d 1182. · cites it 8ד01 administrative appeal, the common pleas court considers the whole record and determines whether the administrative order is “unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence.”
Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Slip Opinion), 2014-Ohio-4809, 23 N.E.3d 1161. · cites it 8ד{¶ 2} We decide a narrow issue: the proper standard of review for courts to apply in appeals, pursuant to R.C. 2506.04, from decisions of zoning authorities that restrict the use of property.”
Kisil v. City of Sandusky, 465 N.E.2d 848 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 7דThe scope of review by the trial court is set forth in R.C. 2506.04, which requires the court to examine the “substantial, reliable and probative evidence on the whole record.”
Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St. 3d 142 (2000). · cites it 9דWe determine that the court of appeals did not exceed the scope of appellate review under R.C. 2506.04 when it reviewed the decision of the common pleas court in this case.”
City of Dayton v. Whiting, 673 N.E.2d 671 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1996). · cites it 12דR.C. 2506.04 provides in part as follows: “The court may find that the order, adjudication, or decision is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record.”
State ex rel. Vill. of Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 775 N.E.2d 512 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 7ד{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2506.04, in an appeal from the board’s decision, the common pleas court “may affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the order, adjudication, or decision, or remand the cause to the officer or body appealed from with instructions to enter an order, adjudication, or…”
Banker's Choice, L.L.C. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals & Cincinnati, 2018-Ohio-3030, 106 N.E.3d 1271. · cites it 12ד{¶11} But our review of an administrative appeal under R.C. 2506.04 is a limited one focused on the existence of legal error in the trial court.”
State ex rel. Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2002-Ohio-4906, 96 Ohio St. 3d 400. · cites it 7ד2 January Term, 2002 {¶8} Under R.C. 2506.04, in an appeal from the board’s decision, the common pleas court “may affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the order, adjudication, or decision, or remand the cause to the officer or body appealed from with instructions to enter an…”
Royse v. City of Dayton, 2011-Ohio-3509, 958 N.E.2d 994. · cites it 8דFurther, he noted in a motion to strike that this case was an administrative appeal brought pursuant to R.C. 2506.04. Finally, in his reply brief submitted to the trial court, Royse reiterated the standard used by trial courts when conducting a review pursuant to R.”
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 693 N.E.2d 219 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 5ד04, which states: “The court may find that the order, adjudication, or decision is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record.”
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.