In re Boyd
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Boyd, 2004-Ohio-3240.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION IN RE: JAMES W. BOYD : Case No. V2003-40780 JAMES W. BOYD : DECISION : Judge Fred J. Shoemaker Applicant : : : : : : : {¶1} This matter came on to be considered upon applicant s appeal from the January 14, 2004, order issued by the panel of commissioners. The panel s determination affirmed the final decision of the Attorney General, which denied applicant s claim for an award of reparations based upon the finding that applicant failed to file a timely reparations application. {¶2} R.C. 2743.52(A) places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims Commissioners that the requirements for an award preponderance of the evidence. have of the evidence, that met by a In re Rios (1983), 8 Ohio Misc.2d 4, 8 OBR 63, 455 N.E.2d 1374. review been The panel found, upon applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to meet his burden. {¶3} appealed which The to the provides standard court in is for reviewing established pertinent part: by If claims R.C. upon that are 2743.61(C), hearing and consideration of the record and evidence, the judge decides that the decision of the panel of commissioners is Case No. V2003-40780 -1- DECISION unreasonable or unlawful, the judge shall reverse and vacate the decision or modify it and enter judgment on the claim. The decision of the judge of the court of claims is final. {¶4} Upon review of the file in this matter, the court finds that the panel of commissioners was not arbitrary in finding that applicant did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to an award of reparations. {¶5} the court s Based on the evidence and R.C. 2743.61, it is opinion that the decision of commissioners was reasonable and lawful. the panel of Therefore, this court affirms the decision of the three-commissioner panel, and hereby denies applicant s claim. {¶6} Upon review of the evidence, the court finds the order of the panel of commissioners must be affirmed and applicant s appeal must be denied. {¶7} IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: {¶8} 1) The order of January 14, 2004, (Jr. Vol. 2252, Pages 74-76) is approved, affirmed and adopted; {¶9} 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment entered for the State of Ohio; {¶10} 3) Costs assumed by the reparations fund. FRED J. SHOEMAKER Judge AMR/cmd A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Case No. V2003-40780 Filed 4-29-2004 Jr. Vol. 2253, Pg. 118 To S.C. 6-21-2004 -1- DECISION
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
