{¶ 1} On July 22, 1998, appellant, village of Chagrin Falls, Ohio, filed a petition to annex 182.264 acres of land from Bainbridge Township, Ohio. On January 21, 1999, following a hearing, the Geauga County Board of Commissioners denied the village’s petition. The village did not appeal the board’s decision.
{¶ 2} On March 15, 2001, the village filed a second petition to annex the same property from Bainbridge Township. On August 23, 2001, the board denied the second petition based on res judicata. The board did not conduct a hearing under former R.C. 709.031(A)
{¶ 4} On October 9, 2001, the court of appeals entered a judgment sua sponte dismissing the village’s complaint for a writ of mandamus. The court of appeals reasoned that the village had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law by way of its R.C. Chapter 2506 appeal from the board’s denial of the second annexation petition.
{¶ 5} This сause is now before us upon the village’s appeal as of right. The Bainbridge Township Board of Trustees filed an amicus curiae brief urging affirmance of the court of appeаls’ judgment.
{¶ 6} In its appeal as of right, the village asserts that the court of appeals erred in not granting its requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. R.C. 2731.05 provides that a “writ of mandamus must not be issued whеn there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.” See, also, State ex rel. Gaydosh v. Twinsburg (2001),
{¶ 7} The village claims that an R.C. Chapter 2506 administrative appeal from thе board’s decision denying its second annexation petition is inadequate because it is not complete, beneficial, and speedy. The village specifically asserts that its administrative appeal would not permit the common pleas court to remand the matter to the board and that the common pleas court’s potential consideratiоn of additional evidence is inadequate.
{¶ 8} Under R.C. 2506.04, in an appeal from the board’s decision, the common pleas court “may affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the order, adjudication, or decision, or remand the cause to the officer or body appealed from with instructions to enter an order, adjudication, or decision consistent with findings or opinion of the court.” In Superior Metal Products, Inc. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv. (1975),
{¶ 9} Although some appellate cases have held otherwise, see, e.g., Zannieri v. Norwalk Bd. of Bldg. & Zoning Appeals (1995),
{If 10} As the court of appeals in Neary cogently observed, the additional language in R.C. 2506.04 regarding remanding the cause with instructions to “enter an order, adjudication, or decision consistent with the findings or opinion of the court” does not prohibit the administrative tribunal or officer to which a cause is remanded from conducting further proceedings:
{¶ 11} “[W]e note that the statute at issue in Superior Metal [i.e., R.C. 4141.28(0) ] is more restrictive of the trial court’s power to remand than the statute applicable in Rocky Point Plaza and the present case [i.e., R.C. 2506.04] in that it does not expressly provide for remand to the agency, but instead limits the cоurt’s authority to reversal, vacation, or modification of the agency’s decision. See R.C. 4141.28(0). In contrast, R.C. 2506.04 explicitly allows for remand from the trial court to the agency so long as the court also instructs the agency to enter a decision consistent with the court’s opinion. This power is bestowed upon the common pleas court in addition to the power to reverse and vacate or modify an administrative decision under the statute. For this reason, the common pleas court’s power to remand a case to the administrative agency should be read as being no more restricted, and perhaps even less restricted, under R.C. 2506.04 than it is under R.C. 4141.28(0). Moreover, the language of R.C. 2506.04 does not, in our view, require the common plеas court to dictate to the agency precisely what the decision pursuant to remand must be, nor does Superior Metal support that proposition. Once a court remands to the administrative agency, the agency’s jurisdiction over the matter is revived. Superior Metal, supra [41 Ohio St.2d] at 146 [
{¶ 13} Moreover, the common pleas court could consider additional evidence in the administrative appeal if any of the circumstancеs in R.C. 2506.03(A)(1) to (5) applies. In other words, R.C. 2506.03 “ ‘contains a liberal provision for the introduction of new or additional evidence to be heard by a reviewing court.’ ” Elbert v. Bexley Planning Comm. (1995),
{¶ 14} Therefore, the village has an adequate remedy by way of its R.C. Chapter 2506 appeal from the board’s denial of its second annexation petition to raise its claims. See Heiney v. Sylvania Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals,
{¶ 15} The village next contends that the board’s failure to conduct a hearing on its second annexation petition denied the village its inalienable constitutional right under Section 1, Article X of the Ohio Constitution to expand its territory and also violated Section 18, Article I of the Ohio Constitution by in effect suspending former R.C. 709.031(A). The village, however, waived these claims by faffing to raise them in the court of appeals. See State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998),
{¶ 16} The village finally asserts that the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed because the court of appeals judge who authored the unanimous decision dismissing the village’s mandamus action was biаsed. According to the village, that judge had previously served as a state representative and sponsored legislation that would have denied the right of property owners to frеely annex their property from a township to a municipality. But the village’s contentions concerning bias are not supported by evidence in the record transmit
{¶ 17} Based on the foregoing, the court оf appeals correctly denied the village’s action for extraordinary relief in mandamus. The village has an adequate legal remedy by way of its pending administrative appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. 1984 Sub.H.B. No. 175, 140 Ohio Laws, Part I, 2196. Effective October 26, 2001, the provisions relating to the time for a hearing on an annexation petition are contained in R.C. 709.031(A). 2001 Am.Sub.S.B. No. 5.