Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

STARR, APPELLEE v. YOUNG, ADMR., BUREAU OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, APPELLANT, ET AL.

Appeal — Adherence to statutory conditions essential — Special statutory requirements — Notice of appeal from Industrial Commission to Common Pleas Court — Section 4123.519, Revised Code.

Per Curiam.

The notice of appeal, filed with the Court of Common Pleas, does not designate the Peerless Coal Company, one of the defendants, as employer and does not contain the claim number.

Section 4123.519, Revised Code, provides in part: "Notice of appeal shall state the names of the claimant and the employer, the number of the claim, the date of the decision appealed from and the fact that the appellant appeals therefrom." (Emphasis added.) This is a special statute applying to appeals from decisions of the Industrial Commission and controls over general statutes covering appellate procedure. The above-quoted mandatory provisions are jurisdictional and must be strictly complied with.

A very similar factual situation was presented in the case of American Restaurant Lunch Co. v. Glander, Tax Commr., 147 Ohio St. 147, in which case the following is stated in the opinion, at page 151:

"It must be conceded that the filing of the required notice of appeal must be within the time prescribed by the statute. That is a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of appeal conferred by the statute. Any of the other statutory requirements as to the notice would be a nullity if, subsequent to the time prescribed for perfection of the appeal, amendment of the notice, by supplying the statements required by the statute, would be permitted; for that would be equivalent to filing the required notice of appeal after the expiration of the time limit prescribed therefor."

See, also, Volz v. Volz, 167 Ohio St. 141.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, BELL, RADCLIFF and O'NEILL, JJ., concur.

RADCLIFF, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT, J.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STARR v. YOUNG
(Jun 14, 1961)