Solomon Cultivation Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 2021 Ohio 46

Background

Solomon Cultivation Corp. applied in June 2017 for an Ohio medical-marijuana cultivator level I provisional license; the Department of Commerce issued a notice of intent to deny in Dec. 2017 based on deficiencies in its operations and security plans.
Solomon requested an administrative hearing (held Oct. 2018); the hearing officer recommended denial in Apr. 2019; the Department adopted that recommendation and denied the application in Sept. 2019.
Solomon appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the Department in Feb. 2020; Solomon appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
The Department scored applications using three-person review teams that each reviewed a category across all applications and reached scores by internal consensus; Solomon complained the consensus process and use of non‑rule criteria violated due process.
The Department found Solomon failed to meet mandatory rule requirements (notably agricultural/cultivation experience required of the applicant), so scoring was secondary to satisfying those mandatory elements.
The appellate court considered four assignments of error (due process, failure to follow rules/prior decision, sufficiency of Solomon’s proof on scoring, and placement of burden of proof) and affirmed the trial court.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process: was Solomon denied adequate notice/opportunity and an impartial procedure?	Solomon: scoring teams reached undisclosed consensus; use of non‑rule criteria and undisclosed consensus process deprived Solomon of adequate notice and fairness.	Dept.: application instructions and rules described scoring criteria and process; Solomon received notice of specific scoring deficiencies and a full hearing.	Court: No due-process violation; Solomon had notice and opportunity to be heard; consensus process need not be further disclosed.
Department failed to follow its rules/prior decision (Pure OH)	Solomon: Dept. departed from Pure OH and applied mandatory rule elements inconsistently.	Dept.: Pure OH not binding and misread the mandatory nature of some rule elements; mandatory criteria must be met regardless of scoring.	Court: Pure OH not controlling; Dept. reasonably enforced mandatory rule requirements.
Whether Solomon proved by preponderance it met minimum scores for plans	Solomon: evidence (documents, consultant testimony) showed its operations and security plans met minimum scores.	Dept.: even if some points arguable, Solomon failed to meet mandatory rule requirements (e.g., applicant agricultural experience), so scoring was moot.	Court: Evidence supports Dept.’s finding that Solomon did not meet mandatory eligibility requirements; denial affirmed.
Proper allocation of burden of proof at administrative hearing	Solomon: Dept. improperly placed burden on applicant to disprove the denial.	Dept.: applicant bears the burden to show entitlement to a license.	Court: Applicant bears the burden to prove entitlement to the license; no error.

Key Cases Cited

Lassiter v. Dept. of Social Servs. of Durham Cty., North Carolina, 452 U.S. 18 (1981) (due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard).
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (fair hearing before an impartial tribunal).
Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (agency order review requires reliable, probative, substantial evidence).
Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (definition/weight of reliable, probative, substantial evidence).
Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (appellate review of common‑pleas factual appraisal is limited).
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard).
West Virginia v. Ohio Hazardous Waste Facility Approval Bd., 28 Ohio St.3d 83 (presumption that agency decision was valid).
St. Augustine Catholic Church v. Atty. Gen. of Ohio, 67 Ohio St.2d 133 (applicant bears burden to show entitlement to license).