2020 Ohio 4073
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Relator Ned Hodkinson, a licensed Standardbred owner/driver/trainer, alleged interference in two 2016 races: one at Scioto Downs and one at the Fairfield County Fair.
- Scioto Downs: Hodkinson did not lodge an immediate objection; he texted the presiding judge about an hour later. Track judges concluded no foul; the Commission declined to hear an appeal, saying no ruling had been entered against any licensee.
- Fairfield County: Hodkinson objected immediately before dismounting; the track judges conferred and made a "non-call" (no foul). Hodkinson sought to appeal to the Ohio State Racing Commission, which refused to accept the appeal.
- The magistrate ordered the Commission to reinstate and hear the Fairfield appeal, finding Hodkinson was "aggrieved" and that a "ruling" included a non-call.
- The Tenth District Court of Appeals sustained the Commission's objections: it affirmed the magistrate on the Scioto Downs timeliness issue, but reversed as to the Fairfield matter, holding former Ohio Adm.Code 3769-17-41 limited "aggrieved" to punitive-type actions (fined/suspended/expelled) so a non-call is not appealable; writ denied.
Issues
| Issue | Hodkinson's Argument | Ohio State Racing Commission's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a track-judges "non-call" (decision not to sanction) is appealable under former Ohio Adm.Code 3769-17-41 | A non-call leaves a licensee just as "aggrieved" as an affirmative sanction; a "ruling" includes decisions not to act, so appeals must be allowed | The rule authorizes appeals only where judges imposed punitive measures (fined, suspended, expelled); a non-call is not a "ruling" that makes a party "aggrieved" | Court held former rule limited "aggrieved" to punitive actions by ejusdem generis; a non-call is not appealable to the Commission under that version of the rule |
| Whether Hodkinson preserved an appeal for the Scioto Downs race (timeliness under Ohio Adm.Code 3769-17-11(B)) | Hodkinson argued he attempted to complain and later appealed to the Commission | Commission showed Hodkinson failed to timely object at the track as required; he texted the judge after several races | Court agreed Hodkinson failed to preserve the objection at Scioto Downs; no right to Commission hearing on that incident |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel the Commission to hold hearings on these appeals | Hodkinson sought mandamus because he had no adequate remedy at law after the Commission refused jurisdiction | Commission argued no clear legal right to a hearing where rule does not authorize appeals from non-calls | Court denied writ: mandamus inappropriate because Hodkinson had no statutory right to Commission review of the Fairfield non-call and failed to preserve Scioto claim |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Aspell, 10 Ohio St.2d 1 (1967) (articulates and applies ejusdem generis to construe general terms by reference to preceding specific terms)
- State v. Mitchell, 32 Ohio App.2d 16 (10th Dist. 1972) (construes limiting effect when "otherwise" follows a list)
- Rhodes v. New Philadelphia, 129 Ohio St.3d 304 (2011) (defines "aggrieved" as having legal rights adversely affected)
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (1983) (sets mandamus elements: clear legal right, clear legal duty, and no plain adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327 (2002) (explains courts cannot create duties via mandamus)
- State v. Hairston, 101 Ohio St.3d 308 (2004) (administrative rules are construed like statutes)