Appeals from orders and judgments of the court of claims lie to the same courts under the same circumstances, as appeals from the court of common pleas of Franklin county, and the same rules of law govern their determination. The decision of the court of claims with respect to an appeal from a decision of the the attorney general pursuant to sections 2743.51 to 2743.72 of the Revised Code is final, and no appeal from the decision of the court of claims lies to any other court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: State ex rel. Jenkins v. Tyack, 479 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1985).
State ex rel. Jenkins v. Tyack, 479 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 3דR.C. 2743.20 specifies in pertinent part: “The decision of the court of claims with respect to an appeal from a decision of the court of claims commissioners is final, and no appeal from the decision of the court of claims lies to any other court.”
Watkins v. Dep't of Youth Servs., 39 N.E.3d 1207 (Ohio 2015). “See R.C. 2743.20. The Tenth District has consistently decided that the limited two-year statute of limitations applies to civil actions brought against the state, except for two cases concerning discrimination claims — Senegal v.”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2025-Ohio-1649. “75(G)(1); see generally R.C. 2743.20 (“[a]ppeals from orders and judgments of the court of claims lie to the same courts under the same circumstances, as appeals from the court of common pleas of Franklin county, and the same rules of law govern their determination”).”
State ex rel. Evans v. McGrath (Slip Opinion), 2017-Ohio-8707. “R.C. 2743.20. Evans is not entitled to a writ of mandamus or prohibition, because “[a]n appeal is generally considered an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law sufficient to preclude a writ.”
Rink v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2018-Ohio-3633. “) {¶ 6} "Although R.C. 2743.20 provides generally for appeals from orders and judgments of the Court of Claims to this court, R.”
State, Ex Rel. Graves v. State, 459 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983). “R.C. 2743.20, which provides that there is no appeal from a judgment of the Court of Claims with respect to an appeal from a decision of the Court of Claims commissioners, does not prevent the exercise of the original jurisdiction of this court in mandamus.”
Yu v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr. v. Pac. Interpreters, Inc., 2018-Ohio-2958. · cites it 3דTo support this proposition, appellant argues that R.C. 2743.20, governing appeals from the Court of Claims, states that such appeals shall be taken "under the same circumstances, as appeals from the court of common pleas of Franklin county, and the same rules of law govern.”
Zavinski v. Dept. of Transp., 2018-Ohio-1503. “See R.C. 2743.20 and 2501.01. Determinations from the Tenth District Court of Appeals discussing the offset for collateral recovery under R.”
Schaffer v. Ohio State Univ., 2025-Ohio-4962. “1968); R.C. 2743.20. Furthermore, this court neither ignored nor contradicted Hicks in Doe.”
In Re Application of Just., 455 N.E.2d 537 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1983). “This appeal is hereby sua sponte dismissed for the reason that R.C. 2743.20 expressly provides that; with respect to such a decision, “no appeal from the decision of the court of claims lies to any other court.”
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.