Any interested party, within thirty days after written notice of the final decision of the unemployment compensation review commission was sent to all interested parties, may appeal the decision of the commission to the court of common pleas.
(B) WHERE TO FILE THE APPEAL
An appellant shall file the appeal with the court of common pleas of the county where the appellant, if an employee, is a resident or was last employed or, if an employer, is a resident or has a principal place of business in this state. If an appellant is not a resident of or last employed in a county in this state or does not have a principal place of business in this state, then an appellant shall file the appeal with the court of common pleas of Franklin county.
(C) PERFECTING THE APPEAL
The timely filing of the notice of appeal shall be the only act required to perfect the appeal and vest jurisdiction in the court. The notice of appeal shall identify the decision appealed from.
(D) INTERESTED PARTIES
The commission shall provide on its final decision the names and addresses of all interested parties. The appellant shall name all interested parties as appellees in the notice of appeal. The director of job and family services is always an interested party and shall be named as an appellee in the notice of appeal.
(E) SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL
Upon filing the notice of appeal with the clerk of the court, the clerk shall serve a copy of the notice of appeal upon all appellees, including the director.
(F) DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION
(1) Except as specified in division (F)(2) of this section, the commission, within forty-five days after a notice of appeal is filed or within an extended period ordered by the court, shall file with the clerk a certified transcript of the record of the proceedings at issue before the commission. The commission also shall provide a copy of the transcript to the appellant's attorney or to the appellant, if the appellant is not represented by counsel, and to any appellee who requests a copy.
(2) If the commission cannot file the certified transcript of the record of proceedings within forty-five days after a notice of appeal is filed, or within an extended period ordered by the court, then the court shall remand the matter to the commission for additional proceedings in order to complete the record on appeal. The additional proceedings may include a new hearing before the commission or a designated hearing officer.
(G) COURT BRIEFING SCHEDULES
The court shall provide for the filing of briefs by the parties, whether by local rule, scheduling order, or otherwise.
(H) REVIEW BY THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
The court shall hear the appeal on the certified record provided by the commission. If the court finds that the decision of the commission was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence, it shall reverse, vacate, or modify the decision, or remand the matter to the commission. Otherwise, the court shall affirm the decision of the commission.
(I) FAILURE TO FILE APPEAL WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
If an appeal is filed after the thirty-day appeal period, the court of common pleas shall conduct a hearing to determine whether the appeal was timely filed under division (D)(9) of section 4141.281 of the Revised Code. At the hearing, additional evidence may be introduced and oral arguments may be presented regarding the timeliness of the filing of the appeal.
If the court of common pleas determines that the appeal was filed within the time allowed, the court shall after that make its decision on the merits of the appeal. The determination on timeliness by the court of common pleas may be appealed to the court of appeals as in civil cases, and such appeal shall be consolidated with any appeal from the decision by the court of common pleas on the merits of the appeal.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 154
cases (33 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Pryor v. Dir., 2016-Ohio-2907, 68 N.E.3d 729.
Pryor v. Dir., 2016-Ohio-2907, 68 N.E.3d 729. · cites it 86ד282 does not require parties appealing from decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission to name all interested parties as appellees in the notice of appeal before the court of common pleas can exercise jurisdiction—To satisfy R.”
Dikong v. Ohio Supports, Inc., 2013-Ohio-33, 985 N.E.2d 949. · cites it 21דDikong appeals pro se the trial court’s judgment dismissing his R.C. 4141.282 appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission and overruling his motion for leave to amend his notice of appeal.”
In re K.K., 2022-Ohio-3888, 209 N.E.3d 660. · cites it 4ד282(D) that an appellant name all interested parties in its notice of the appeal was not jurisdictional, because that subsection did not include express language like the language contained in R.C. 4141.282(C), which stated that the timely filing of an appeal was “the only act…”
Lang v. Dir., 2012-Ohio-5366, 982 N.E.2d 636. · cites it 4דStandard of Review {¶ 11} R.C. 4141.282(H) sets forth the standard of review for a decision made by the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission: “If the court finds that the decision of the commission was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the…”
Nicoll v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2011-Ohio-5207. · cites it 14ד2 {¶ 2} On November 8, 2010, in the court of common pleas, Nicoll filed a “Notice of Appeal Pursuant to O.R.C. 4141.282,” in which she appealed the Ohio Unemployment Review Commission’s (“Commission”) “Decision Disallowing Request for Review” (“Decision”).”
Middlebrook v. United Collection Bur., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8587. · cites it 5דNonetheless, it is clear that Middlebrook seeks a reversal of the trial court's denial of her motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Therefore, we construe Middlebrook's assignments of error to allege that the trial court erred in denying her Civ.”
Makris v. Unemp. Comp. Rev. Comm., 2013-Ohio-2317. · cites it 9דThe administrative appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to Appellant's failure to file the appeal within 30 days of the final decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (“Review Commission”), pursuant to R.C. 4141.282(A). The final administrative…”
Hicks v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2014-Ohio-2735. · cites it 8ד{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 4141.282, appellant timely filed a notice of appeal of the commission's decision in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”
Blake v. Unemp. Rev. Comm. Admr., 2017-Ohio-166. · cites it 7ד{¶ 29} An interested party may appeal a decision from the UCRC to the common pleas court of the county where the party is a resident or was last employed, pursuant to R.C. 4141.282(A) and (B). The trial court is to hear the appeal upon the record as certified and provided by the…”
Mattice v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2013-Ohio-3941. · cites it 21ד{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Mandi Mattice appeals, pro se, a decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, dismissing her R.C. 4141.282 appeal from a decision of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) finding that…”
Williams v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Fam. Servs., 2011-Ohio-2897, 129 Ohio St. 3d 332. “Standard of Review {¶ 20} The Unemployment Compensation Review Commission’s determination of whether a claimant was discharged with just cause is appealable to the court of common pleas: “If the court finds that the decision of the commission was unlawful, unreasonable, or…”
Pryor v. Dir., 2016-Ohio-2907, 68 N.E.3d 729. “282 does not require parties appealing from decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission to name all interested parties as appellees in the notice of appeal before the court of common pleas can exercise jurisdiction—To satisfy R.”
Makris v. Unemp. Comp. Rev. Comm., 2013-Ohio-2317. “The administrative appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to Appellant's failure to file the appeal within 30 days of the final decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (“Review Commission”), pursuant to R.C. 4141.282(A). The final administrative…”
Dikong v. Ohio Supports, Inc., 2013-Ohio-33, 985 N.E.2d 949. “Dikong appeals pro se the trial court’s judgment dismissing his R.C. 4141.282 appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission and overruling his motion for leave to amend his notice of appeal.”
Blake v. Unemp. Rev. Comm. Admr., 2017-Ohio-166. “{¶ 29} An interested party may appeal a decision from the UCRC to the common pleas court of the county where the party is a resident or was last employed, pursuant to R.C. 4141.282(A) and (B). The trial court is to hear the appeal upon the record as certified and provided by the…”
Nicoll v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2011-Ohio-5207. “2 {¶ 2} On November 8, 2010, in the court of common pleas, Nicoll filed a “Notice of Appeal Pursuant to O.R.C. 4141.282,” in which she appealed the Ohio Unemployment Review Commission’s (“Commission”) “Decision Disallowing Request for Review” (“Decision”).”
Pryor v. Dir., 2016-Ohio-2907, 68 N.E.3d 729. “282 does not require parties appealing from decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission to name all interested parties as appellees in the notice of appeal before the court of common pleas can exercise jurisdiction—To satisfy R.”
Dikong v. Ohio Supports, Inc., 2013-Ohio-33, 985 N.E.2d 949. “Dikong appeals pro se the trial court’s judgment dismissing his R.C. 4141.282 appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission and overruling his motion for leave to amend his notice of appeal.”
In re K.K., 2022-Ohio-3888, 209 N.E.3d 660. “282(D) that an appellant name all interested parties in its notice of the appeal was not jurisdictional, because that subsection did not include express language like the language contained in R.C. 4141.282(C), which stated that the timely filing of an appeal was “the only act…”
Nicoll v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2011-Ohio-5207. “2 {¶ 2} On November 8, 2010, in the court of common pleas, Nicoll filed a “Notice of Appeal Pursuant to O.R.C. 4141.282,” in which she appealed the Ohio Unemployment Review Commission’s (“Commission”) “Decision Disallowing Request for Review” (“Decision”).”
Mattice v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2013-Ohio-3941. “{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Mandi Mattice appeals, pro se, a decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, dismissing her R.C. 4141.282 appeal from a decision of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) finding that…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.282(D): 6 cases
Pryor v. Dir., 2016-Ohio-2907, 68 N.E.3d 729. “282 does not require parties appealing from decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission to name all interested parties as appellees in the notice of appeal before the court of common pleas can exercise jurisdiction—To satisfy R.”
Dikong v. Ohio Supports, Inc., 2013-Ohio-33, 985 N.E.2d 949. “Dikong appeals pro se the trial court’s judgment dismissing his R.C. 4141.282 appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission and overruling his motion for leave to amend his notice of appeal.”
In re K.K., 2022-Ohio-3888, 209 N.E.3d 660. “282(D) that an appellant name all interested parties in its notice of the appeal was not jurisdictional, because that subsection did not include express language like the language contained in R.C. 4141.282(C), which stated that the timely filing of an appeal was “the only act…”
Mattice v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2013-Ohio-3941. “{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Mandi Mattice appeals, pro se, a decision of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, dismissing her R.C. 4141.282 appeal from a decision of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) finding that…”
Middlebrook v. United Collection Bur., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8587. “Nonetheless, it is clear that Middlebrook seeks a reversal of the trial court's denial of her motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Therefore, we construe Middlebrook's assignments of error to allege that the trial court erred in denying her Civ.”
Hicks v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2014-Ohio-2735. “{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 4141.282, appellant timely filed a notice of appeal of the commission's decision in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”
Hicks v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2014-Ohio-2735. “{¶11} Pursuant to R.C. 4141.282, appellant timely filed a notice of appeal of the commission's decision in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.282(H): 136 cases
Lang v. Dir., 2012-Ohio-5366, 982 N.E.2d 636. “Standard of Review {¶ 11} R.C. 4141.282(H) sets forth the standard of review for a decision made by the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission: “If the court finds that the decision of the commission was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the…”
Blake v. Unemp. Rev. Comm. Admr., 2017-Ohio-166. “{¶ 29} An interested party may appeal a decision from the UCRC to the common pleas court of the county where the party is a resident or was last employed, pursuant to R.C. 4141.282(A) and (B). The trial court is to hear the appeal upon the record as certified and provided by the…”
Williams v. Ohio Dep't of Job & Fam. Servs., 2011-Ohio-2897, 129 Ohio St. 3d 332. “Standard of Review {¶ 20} The Unemployment Compensation Review Commission’s determination of whether a claimant was discharged with just cause is appealable to the court of common pleas: “If the court finds that the decision of the commission was unlawful, unreasonable, or…”
Nicoll v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Fam. Servs., 2011-Ohio-5207. “2 {¶ 2} On November 8, 2010, in the court of common pleas, Nicoll filed a “Notice of Appeal Pursuant to O.R.C. 4141.282,” in which she appealed the Ohio Unemployment Review Commission’s (“Commission”) “Decision Disallowing Request for Review” (“Decision”).”
Middlebrook v. United Collection Bur., Inc., 2017-Ohio-8587. “Nonetheless, it is clear that Middlebrook seeks a reversal of the trial court's denial of her motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B). Therefore, we construe Middlebrook's assignments of error to allege that the trial court erred in denying her Civ.”
Makris v. Unemp. Comp. Rev. Comm., 2013-Ohio-2317. “The administrative appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to Appellant's failure to file the appeal within 30 days of the final decision of the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission (“Review Commission”), pursuant to R.C. 4141.282(A). The final administrative…”
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.