State ex rel. Capretta v. Zamiska, 985 N.E.2d 454

Capretta was elected to Brunswick Ward 4 in 2007 and served starting 2008.
City ethics complaints, prompted by a complaint over reimbursing a constituent, led to an Ethics Board finding merit in Capretta’s conduct.
Following evidentiary hearings, Capretta was removed from office on Sept. 27, 2010 for violating the Brunswick Charter’s prohibition on council interference with city officers.
Zamiska was appointed to fill the vacancy on Oct. 18, 2010.
Capretta pursued an administrative appeal under R.C. 2506.01 in Oct. 2010; the trial court affirmed the council’s removal; appellate review followed, with the Court of Appeals ultimately ruling moot as Capretta’s term expired and he was reelected.
Capretta then sought quo warranto in the Court of Appeals to oust Zamiska and obtain back pay/retirement credit; the Court granted summary judgment for appellees, effectively denying the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an administrative appeal under RC 2506 provides an adequate remedy.	Capretta argues administrative appeal is inadequate due to potential back pay/retirement credit via RC 2733.18.	Appellees contend RC 2506.01 provides an adequate ordinary-remedy precluding quo warranto.	Yes; administrative appeal is adequate, precluding quo warranto.

State ex rel. Johnson v. Talikka, 71 Ohio St.3d 109 (Ohio 1994) (extraordinary writs require an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law)
State ex rel. Fogle v. Carlisle, 99 Ohio St.3d 46 (Ohio 2003) (administrative appeals can preclude extraordinary relief)
State ex rel. Zeigler v. Zumbar, 129 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2011) (RC 2506.01 applies to quasi-judicial proceedings)
In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co., 129 Ohio St.3d 271 (Ohio 2011) (court may reject arguments not supported by authority)
State ex rel. Weiss v. Indus. Comm., 65 Ohio St.3d 470 (Ohio 1992) (agency proceedings and back-pay questions)