Federer v. Ohio Dept. Natl. Resources, Div. of Wildlife
2015 Ohio 5368
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Federer has owned a bobcat since 2003 and held non-commercial propagating licenses under R.C. 1533.71.
- In 2012 the Dangerous Wild Animals and Snake Act was enacted to regulate dangerous wild animals per R.C. 935.01, administered by the Ohio Department of Agriculture; ODNR cannot license animals defined as dangerous wild animals under 935.01.
- In March 2014 Federer applied to ODNR for a bobcat license under R.C. 1533.71; ODNR denied the application on March 25, 2014.
- ODNR’s hearing officer upheld the denial, reasoning that a bobcat is a lynx genus species and lynxes are dangerous wild animals under 935.01(C)(7)(b).
- Federer appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which on January 15, 2015 reversed ODNR’s decision, holding that the term 'lynxes' refers to species, not the entire genus and that bobcats are not included in 935.01(C).
- ODNR challenges the ruling in two assignments of error: (I) interpretation of R.C. 935.01 and (II) whether Federer’s bobcat was domesticated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'lynxes' in R.C. 935.01(C)(7)(b) include bobcats? | Federer | ODNR | Bobcat not included; 'lynxes' refers to species, not genus; bobcat not listed in 935.01(C). |
| Was ODNR's denial in accordance with law given the interpretation of 'lynxes'? | Federer | ODNR | Denial reversed; statute uses common names and omits bobcat; denial not in accordance with law. |
| Did the trial court err by making an independent finding that Federer’s bobcat was domesticated? | Federer | ODNR | Any error harmless; neither decision relied on domestication. |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (hybrid review; determine if order is in accordance with law)
- Lies v. Vet. Med. Bd., 2 Ohio App.3d 204 (1st Dist.1981) (credibility and weight of evidence in agency review)
- Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St.275 (1955) (standard of review for administrative decisions; deference to agency)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (1993) (abuse of discretion and de novo aspects in appellate review)
- Ohio Hist. Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466 (1993) (purely legal questions reviewed de novo)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion and standard of review)
- Big Bob's, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 151 Ohio App.3d 498 (2003) (court reviews administrative action; standard of review)