pari materia rule in Ohio

2022Herman v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 585 (1995) (“The in pari materia rule of construction may be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists.”).

2013Hermann v. Klopfleisch, 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 585 , 651 N.E.2d 995 (1995) (the in pari materia rule may only be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists).

2021Bd. of Commrs., 32 Ohio St.3d 24 , 27–28, 512 N.E.2d 332 (1987); see Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc., 142 Ohio St.3d 236 , 2014- Ohio-5511, 29 N.E.3d 903, ¶ 22 (“ ‘The in pari materia rule of construction may be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists.’ ”), quoting State 12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ex rel.

2021Bd. of Commrs., 32 Ohio St.3d 24 , 27–28, 512 N.E.2d 332 (1987); see Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc., 142 Ohio St.3d 236 , 2014- Ohio-5511, 29 N.E.3d 903, ¶ 22 (“ ‘The in pari materia rule of construction may be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists.’ ”), quoting State 12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS ex rel.

1989As we stated in State v. Krutz (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 36, 37-38 , 28 OBR 96, 97, 502 N.E. 2d 210, 211 , certiorari denied (1987), 481 U.S. 1028 , “the in pari materia rule of statutory construction applies ‘only where the statute to be construed is ambiguous or the significance of its terms doubtful.’ ” Since, pursuant to R.C. 2925.03(E)(3), a six-month term of actual incarceration is mandated in this case, under R.C. 2951.02(F)(5) appel lee is simply ineligible for probation.

1989As we stated in State v. Krutz (1986), 28 Ohio St. 3d 36, 37-38 , 28 OBR 96, 97, 502 N.E. 2d 210, 211 , certiorari denied (1987), 481 U.S. 1028 , “the in pari materia rule of statutory construction applies ‘only where the statute to be construed is ambiguous or the significance of its terms doubtful.’ ” Since, pursuant to R.C. 2925.03(E)(3), a six-month term of actual incarceration is mandated in this case, under R.C. 2951.02(F)(5) appel lee is simply ineligible for probation.

2024See Cleveland v. State, 2019-Ohio-3820, ¶ 17 (lead opinion), citing State v. Krutz, 28 Ohio St.3d 36, 37-38 (1986), and Ali v. Fed.

2024See Cleveland v. State, 2019-Ohio-3820, ¶ 17 (lead opinion), citing State v. Krutz, 28 Ohio St.3d 36, 37-38 (1986), and Ali v. Fed.

2001Herman v. Klopfleisch (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 585 , 651 N.E.2d 995, 998 (“The in pari materia rule of construction may be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists”); see, also, Thomas v. Freeman (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 221, 224 , 680 N.E.2d 997, 1000 , where we applied principles of statutory construction in analyzing Rules of Civil Procedure.

2001Herman v. Klopfleisch (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 585 , 651 N.E.2d 995, 998 (“The in pari materia rule of construction may be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists”); see, also, Thomas v. Freeman (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 221, 224 , 680 N.E.2d 997, 1000 , where we applied principles of statutory construction in analyzing Rules of Civil Procedure.

2025See generally In re Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., 2017-Ohio-5536, ¶ 27 (Under the in pari materia rule of statutory construction, “a court must read all statutes relating to the same general subject matter together to give proper force and effect to each one.”).

2024“Under the in pari materia rule of statutory construction, a court must read all statutes relating to the same general subject matter together to give proper force and effect to each one.” In re Application of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., 2017-Ohio-5536, ¶ 27 .

2022Examiner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2017-Ohio-8714 , 94 N.E.3d 498 , ¶ 17 (lead opinion) (the in pari materia rule of statutory construction applies when the wording of a statute is in doubt or ambiguous, i.e., capable of bearing more than one meaning).

2022Examiner’s Office, 152 Ohio St.3d 163 , 2017-Ohio-8714 , 94 N.E.3d 498 , ¶ 17 (lead opinion) (the in pari materia rule of statutory construction applies when the wording of a statute is in doubt or ambiguous, i.e., capable of bearing more than one meaning).

2021Thus, if the language of the statute is unambiguous, we have “no cause to apply the rules of statutory construction.” Id.; see Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398 , 2016-Ohio-8434 , 75 N.E.3d 203, ¶ 8 (“We ‘do not have the authority’ to dig deeper than the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute ‘under the guise of either statutory interpretation or liberal construction.’ ”), quoting Morgan v. Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 347 , 626 N.E.2d 939 (1994); see also R.C. 1.49 (“If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the legislature, may consider * * * othe

2021Thus, if the language of the statute is unambiguous, we have “no cause to apply the rules of statutory construction.” Id.; see Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398 , 2016-Ohio-8434 , 75 N.E.3d 203, ¶ 8 (“We ‘do not have the authority’ to dig deeper than the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute ‘under the guise of either statutory interpretation or liberal construction.’ ”), quoting Morgan v. Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 347 , 626 N.E.2d 939 (1994); see also R.C. 1.49 (“If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the legislature, may consider * * * othe

2021Thus, if the language of the statute is unambiguous, we have “no cause to apply the rules of statutory construction.” Id.; see Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398 , 2016-Ohio-8434 , 75 N.E.3d 203, ¶ 8 (“We ‘do not have the authority’ to dig deeper than the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute ‘under the guise of either statutory interpretation or liberal construction.’ ”), quoting Morgan v. Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 347 , 626 N.E.2d 939 (1994); see also R.C. 1.49 (“If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the legislature, may consider * * * othe

2021Thus, if the language of the statute is unambiguous, we have “no cause to apply the rules of statutory construction.” Id.; see Jacobson v. Kaforey, 149 Ohio St.3d 398 , 2016-Ohio-8434 , 75 N.E.3d 203, ¶ 8 (“We ‘do not have the authority’ to dig deeper than the plain meaning of an unambiguous statute ‘under the guise of either statutory interpretation or liberal construction.’ ”), quoting Morgan v. Adult Parole Auth., 68 Ohio St.3d 344, 347 , 626 N.E.2d 939 (1994); see also R.C. 1.49 (“If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the legislature, may consider * * * othe

2012See State v. Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2009-Ohio-5937 , 919 N.E.2d 190, ¶ 31 ; State v. Coburn, 121 Ohio St.3d 310 , 2009-Ohio-834 , 903 N.E.2d 1204 . {¶ 9} Trooper Schack had been issued an operator-access card for the Intoxilyzer 8000 on May 5, 2010.

2012See State v. Robinson, 124 Ohio St.3d 76 , 2009-Ohio-5937 , 919 N.E.2d 190, ¶ 31 ; State v. Coburn, 121 Ohio St.3d 310 , 2009-Ohio-834 , 903 N.E.2d 1204 . {¶ 9} Trooper Schack had been issued an operator-access card for the Intoxilyzer 8000 on May 5, 2010.

2026“It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a statute should not be interpreted to yield an absurd result.” In re M.L., 2023-Ohio-3541, ¶ 45 (6th Dist.).

2026“It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that a statute should not be interpreted to yield an absurd result.” In re M.L., 2023-Ohio-3541, ¶ 45 (6th Dist.).

2026“The in pari materia rule of construction may be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists.” Baldwin v. Buckles, 2020-Ohio-2759, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.).

2026“The in pari materia rule of construction may be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists.” Baldwin v. Buckles, 2020-Ohio-2759, ¶ 21 (6th Dist.).

2023When determining the intention of the legislature with respect to ambiguous statutes, R.C. 1.49(A)-(F) provides that the court may consider, among other things: “[t]he object sought to be attained; [t]he circumstances under which the statute was enacted; [t]he legislative history; [t]he common law or former statutory provisions, including laws upon the same or similar subjects; [t]he consequences of a particular construction; and [t]he administrative construction of the statute.” But see TWISM Enters., LLC v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, Slip No. 2021-1440,

2020Found., Inc. v. Bright, 96 Ohio St.3d 183 , 2002-Ohio-4034, ¶ 8 (stating that "a statute is ambiguous when its language is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation"). {¶ 50} "The in pari materia rule of construction may be used in interpreting statutes where some doubt or ambiguity exists." State ex rel.

2020See Bryant, 2020-Ohio-1041 , __ N.E.3d __, at ¶ 26.

2020Lucas No. L-08-1173, 2008-Ohio-6403, ¶ 4 (neighbor). {¶ 29} We reviewed the matter de novo and find appellee had standing under the in pari materia doctrine to file a petition pursuant to R.C. 2903.214 for her custodial grandson who was a minor. {¶ 30} Appellant’s second assignment of error is not well-taken.

2018Comm., 39 Ohio St.3d 295, 299 (1988). {¶ 19} Where, as here, a statute refers to other statutes that relate to the same subject matter, the in pari materia rule states that the court must read all statutes relating to the same general subject matter together to give proper force and effect to each one.

2014See State v. Sorrell, 187 Ohio App.3d 286 , 2010-Ohio-1618 , ¶ 16 (2d Dist.) (“While the object of a support order is clearly the welfare of the dependent child, the child’s claim to any arrearage owed by the offender is secondary to that of the custodial parent or state agency tasked with the responsibility of collecting and distributing the payments made pursuant to the support order fashioned by the court.”).