Smith v. Ohio Casino Control Commission
Ohio Court of Appeals
149 N.E.3d 981 (2019)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
In November 2013, the Ohio Casino Control Commission (the commission) (defendant) issued a casino-gaming-employee license to Vanessa Smith (plaintiff). The governing statute provided that licenses were revocable privileges, and licensees had to undergo investigations at least every three years to determine whether they were still in compliance with licensing requirements. If the commission determined that the licensee was in compliance, the licensee’s license would be renewed for a three-year period. The statute required applicants for initial, new, or renewal licenses to submit an application form and fee to the commission. The statute further provided that all applicants had to establish their suitability for a license by clear and convincing evidence, defining “applicant” as any person who applied to the commission for a license. In July 2016, Smith applied to renew her license. The commission notified Smith that it intended to deny her renewal application and gave Smith a notice of opportunity for hearing (NOH). The NOH stated that Smith had failed to demonstrate her suitability for a license, alleging that Smith’s renewal application had not disclosed a wage garnishment, a bankruptcy, nine instances of criminal conduct, and five civil complaints that had resulted in judgments or liens against Smith. Following a hearing, the hearing officer issued a report and recommendation concluding, among other things, that Smith had not demonstrated her suitability for a renewal license by clear and convincing evidence. The commission adopted the hearing officer’s report and recommendation and denied Smith’s renewal application. Smith appealed to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, which reversed and remanded for a new hearing. The court reasoned that because Smith had already been licensed and was only seeking renewal, she was no longer an “applicant” for purposes of the licensing statute and did not bear the burden of proving her suitability by clear and convincing evidence. The court thus held that the commission had applied the wrong burden of proof to Smith’s application. The commission appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sadler, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.