In the case State ex rel. Bowling v. DeWine, 2021-Ohio-2902, the Tenth District Court of Appeals held that a claim against the Governor for terminating an agreement that cut off certain unemployment benefits was allowed to proceed.
Here, several Ohio citizens who receive unemployment benefits brought an action against the Governor alleging that the Governor improperly terminated federally authorized unemployment benefits. The government representatives argued that it was not required to provide the additional federal funds alleged.
The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to address all factors before determining that the citizens were not likely to succeed on the merits. The Court further reasoned that since there was a possibility for the Ohio citizens to prevail on the merits of the case, the case was eligible for appeal.
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.