In the case State ex rel. Drouhard v. Morrow Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 2020-Ohio-4160, 2020 Ohio LEXIS 1905, the Ohio Supreme Court found under traditional tools of statutory interpretation, R.C. 339.02 was to be read as providing that each of the county commissioners, as opposed to the board as a whole, possessed a vote on the appointing authority for hospital trustees, and thus constituted the majority of that body, the three commissioners here constituted the majority of the “appointing authority” that was empowered by law to remove a member of the county hospital board of trustees and thus had the authority to proceed with a show-cause hearing to consider the removal of relator hospital trustee. Furthermore, if relator was removed from the hospital board of trustees, he had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal to the common pleas court and thus was not entitled to a writ of prohibition.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.