Hodkinson v. Ohio State Racing Comm'n
2017 Ohio 7494
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On July 29, 2016, appellant Ned Hodkinson drove Grubich Girl in a harness race at Scioto Downs and alleges another driver interfered, causing his horse to finish last.
- Track judges took no action and did not issue any ruling or sanction against any licensee; Hodkinson did not object at the track within 48 hours.
- Hodkinson filed an appeal form with the Ohio State Racing Commission seeking review of the judges' "no call" for interference; a hearing was scheduled then continued at his counsel's request.
- The Commission issued an October 6, 2016 letter declining to entertain the appeal, stating there was no ruling against a licensee and thus no entitlement to a hearing; the scheduled hearing was cancelled and the matter closed.
- Hodkinson appealed the October 6 letter to Franklin County Common Pleas; the trial court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the letter was not an adjudication under R.C. 119.12. Hodkinson appealed to the Tenth District, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court had jurisdiction under R.C. 119.12 to review the Commission's October 6, 2016 letter | Hodkinson: the letter denying review was an appealable agency action/adjudication under R.C. 119.12 | Commission: the letter was a preliminary threshold determination, not an adjudication, so no appeal under R.C. 119.12 | Held: No jurisdiction — October 6 letter was not an adjudication; appeal dismissed |
| Whether a racetrack judges' failure to call interference is itself a basis for administrative appeal to the Commission | Hodkinson: the judges' inaction is reviewable and the Commission had authority to hear the challenge | Commission: no ruling or sanction was issued against a licensee, so the appeal mechanism (and hearing) does not apply | Held: Moot (court declined to reach merits because there was no adjudication to appeal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (2014) (subject-matter jurisdiction is threshold; limits on common pleas review of administrative actions)
- M.J. Kelley Co. v. Cleveland, 32 Ohio St.2d 150 (1972) (quasi-judicial proceedings require notice, hearing, and opportunity to introduce evidence)
- Ohio Boys Town, Inc. v. Brown, 69 Ohio St.2d 1 (1982) (definition of a ministerial act vs. discretionary/adjudicative act)
- Rankin-Thoman, Inc. v. Caldwell, 42 Ohio St.2d 436 (1975) (constitutional authorization for common pleas review contemplates quasi-judicial proceedings)