Yesterday, in Save Ohio Parks v. Oil & Gas Land Mgt. Comm., 2025-Ohio-847, Ohio’s Tenth District Court of Appeals held that R.C. 119.12 does not provide a right to appeal the decisions of the Oil & Gas Land Management Commission to approve nominations of state lands for oil and gas leasing.
In Ohio, persons, entities, and state agencies can nominate lands that are owned or controlled by the state to be leased for oil and gas development through the Commission pursuant to the procedures set forth in R.C. 155.33. Here, a group of appellants filed an appeal in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas seeking to challenge the Commission’s decisions to approve certain nominations of state lands for leasing. In their appeal to the trial court, the appellants claimed they should have been provided with an administrative appeal pursuant to R.C. 119.12. The trial court granted the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that (i) the Commission’s approvals of the nominations are not subject to appeal pursuant to R.C. 119.12 because the trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction and (ii) the appellants lack standing.
On appeal, the court of appeals cited its previous decisions addressing the same issue, which state that an agency decision is not appealable under R.C. 119.12 unless:
Because items 1) and 3) do not apply to the Commission, the court of appeals analyzed whether the Commission’s approval of the nominations involved the “licensing functions” of the Commission. The court of appeals concluded that the Commission’s action did not involve a licensing function because (i) no license was applied for and (ii) the Commission’s approval of the nominations did not involve the issuing, suspending, revoking, or cancelling of a license. Therefore, the Commission’s approvals under R.C.155.33 were not subject to appeal under the statute and the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appellants’ challenge.
Lastly, the court of appeals held that even if the Commission’s actions were subject to appeal under R.C. 119.12, the appellants lacked standing because they were unable to demonstrate that they suffered an injury. The court of appeals found that, at best, the appellants could only speculate that they may be harmed in the future if the nominated lands are leased for oil and gas development.