(A) The attorney general, on the attorney general's own motion or upon request of a claimant or victim, may reconsider a decision to make an award of reparations, the amount of an award of reparations, or a decision to deny a claim for an award of reparations. A claimant may file a request for reconsideration with the attorney general not later than thirty days after the attorney general renders an initial decision. A claimant may submit with the request any additional information that is relevant to the claimant's claim for an award of reparation.
The attorney general shall reconsider the application based upon evidence that is relevant to the application and issue a final decision within sixty days of receiving the request for reconsideration. The attorney general may extend the sixty-day time limit and shall record in writing specific reasons to justify the extension. The attorney general shall notify the claimant of the extension and of the reasons for the extension.
If a claimant does not file a request for reconsideration of a decision of the attorney general to make an award or to deny a claim or of the amount of an award within thirty days after the decision is rendered, the award, the denial of the claim, or the amount of the award is final unless the attorney general in the interest of justice allows the reconsideration after the expiration of that period of time.
(B) A claimant may appeal an award of reparations, the amount of an award of reparations, or the denial of a claim for an award of reparations that is made by a final decision of the attorney general after any reconsideration. If the final decision of the attorney general with respect to any claim for an award of reparations is appealed, the court of claims, within ninety days of receiving the notice of appeal, shall schedule and conduct a hearing on the appeal. The court shall determine the appeal within sixty days from the date of the hearing on the basis of the record of the hearing before the court, including the original award or denial and the finding of fact of the attorney general, any information or documents that the attorney general used in the investigation, any information or data provided to the attorney general, any briefs or oral arguments that may be requested by the court, and any additional evidence presented at the hearing. The court may extend the sixty-day time limit and shall record in writing specific reasons to justify the extension. The attorney general shall supply the court with the original decision awarding or denying compensation, the finding of fact of the attorney general, any information or documents that the attorney general used in the investigation, and any information or data provided to the attorney general within fourteen days of the filing of the objection and notice of appeal by the applicant. The court shall notify the claimant and attorney general of the extension and of the reasons for the extension. If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the court decides that the decision of the attorney general appealed from is reasonable and lawful, it shall affirm the same. If the court decides that the decision of the attorney general is not supported by a preponderance of the evidence or is unreasonable or unlawful, the court shall reverse and vacate the decision or modify it and enter judgment thereon. The decision of the court is final.
(C) Notices of an appeal concerning an award of reparations shall be filed within thirty days after the date on which the award or the denial of a claim is made by a final decision of the attorney general. If a notice of appeal is not filed within the thirty-day period, the award or denial of the claim is final unless the court of claims in the interests of justice allows the appeal.
State ex rel. DeWine v. Court of Claims of Ohio, 2011 Ohio 5283 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 22ד{¶ 14} The questions presented in this case, therefore, are who may qualify as a claimant as that term is used in R.”
State ex rel. Cordray v. Court of Claims, 941 N.E.2d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6דR.C. 2743.61 provides that the attorney general may make or deny a claim for an award of reparations.”
State ex rel. Jenkins v. Tyack, 479 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 6דThe Court of Claims had jurisdiction and authority only to review the sole conclusion of law of the panel by reason of division (A) of R.C. 2743.61 giving the Attorney General a right to appeal “conclusions of law made by a panel of court of claims commissioners.”
In re Faris, 684 N.E.2d 112 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1996). · cites it 2דThe standard for reviewing claims appealed to the court is established by R.C. 2743.61, which provides, in pertinent part: “If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the court decides that the decision of the commissioners appealed from is reasonable and…”
In re Robinson, 684 N.E.2d 754 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1996). · cites it 2דThe standard for reviewing claims appealed to the court is established by R.C. 2743.61, which provides, in part: “If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the court decides that the decision of the commissioners appealed from is reasonable and lawful, it…”
In re Clapacs, 567 N.E.2d 1351 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1989). “In reviewing claims appealed to the court, the court is guided by R.C. 2743.61(A), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “* * * If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the court decides that the decision of the commissioners appealed from is…”
In re DeCerbo, 449 N.E.2d 526 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1982). “This would be contrary to R.C. 2743.61(A), which limits the court to the record before the commissioners.”
In re Grow, 454 N.E.2d 618 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1983). · cites it 2דThe competency of police investigative data was recently implemented by the legislature in its recent amendment to R.C. 2743.61 (A), effective March 18, 1983.”
In re Ewing, 515 N.E.2d 666 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1987). “It is certainly not unreasonable for the panel to reach this conclusion, and R.C. 2743.61(A) sets reasonableness and lawfulness as the standards for review on appeal to a judge.”
In re Vaughn, 698 N.E.2d 148 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1997). · cites it 2דThe standard for reviewing claims appealed to the court is established by R.C. 2743.61, which provides: *177 “If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the court decides that the decision of the commissioners appealed from is reasonable and lawful, it shall…”
In re Fife, 569 N.E.2d 1078 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1989). “* * *” In reviewing claims appealed to the court, the court is guided by R.C. 2743.61(A), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “* * * If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the court decides that the decision of the commissioners appealed from is…”
In re Paige, 643 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1994). · cites it 2דThe standard for reviewing claims appealed to the court is established by R.C. 2743.61, which provides, in pertinent part, the following: “If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the court decides that the decision of the commissioners appealed from is…”
State ex rel. Jenkins v. Tyack, 479 N.E.2d 267 (Ohio 1985). “The Court of Claims had jurisdiction and authority only to review the sole conclusion of law of the panel by reason of division (A) of R.C. 2743.61 giving the Attorney General a right to appeal “conclusions of law made by a panel of court of claims commissioners.”
In re Clapacs, 567 N.E.2d 1351 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1989). “In reviewing claims appealed to the court, the court is guided by R.C. 2743.61(A), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: “* * * If upon hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the court decides that the decision of the commissioners appealed from is…”
In re DeCerbo, 449 N.E.2d 526 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1982). “This would be contrary to R.C. 2743.61(A), which limits the court to the record before the commissioners.”
In re Ewing, 515 N.E.2d 666 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1987). “It is certainly not unreasonable for the panel to reach this conclusion, and R.C. 2743.61(A) sets reasonableness and lawfulness as the standards for review on appeal to a judge.”
In re Grow, 454 N.E.2d 618 (Ohio Ct. Cl. 1983). “The competency of police investigative data was recently implemented by the legislature in its recent amendment to R.C. 2743.61 (A), effective March 18, 1983.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2743.61(B) — 9 cases
State ex rel. DeWine v. Court of Claims of Ohio, 2011 Ohio 5283 (Ohio 2011). “{¶ 14} The questions presented in this case, therefore, are who may qualify as a claimant as that term is used in R.”
State ex rel. Cordray v. Court of Claims, 941 N.E.2d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “R.C. 2743.61 provides that the attorney general may make or deny a claim for an award of reparations.”
State ex rel. Cordray v. Court of Claims, 941 N.E.2d 93 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “R.C. 2743.61 provides that the attorney general may make or deny a claim for an award of reparations.”
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.