Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 106.042 (2026)

Effect of adoption of concurrent resolution invalidating proposed rule; effect of failure to adopt resolution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) The adoption by the general assembly of a concurrent resolution invalidating any version of a proposed rule prohibits the agency that proposed the rule from instituting or continuing rule-making proceedings with regard to any version of the proposed rule for the remaining term of the general assembly. However, the general assembly may adopt a concurrent resolution that authorizes the agency to institute or continue rule-making proceedings with regard to the proposed rule, but the agency may not adopt any version of the proposed rule unless it has been submitted to the joint committee on agency rule review and the time for legislative review has expired without adoption of a concurrent resolution invalidating the proposed rule.

(B) The failure of the general assembly to adopt a concurrent resolution invalidating a proposed or existing rule is not a ratification of the lawfulness or reasonableness of the proposed or existing rule or of the validity of the procedure by which the rule was proposed or adopted.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2018–2018 · leading case: Biglin v. S (In re Black Fork Wind Energy, L. L.C.), 124 N.E.3d 787 (Ohio 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Biglin v. S (In re Black Fork Wind Energy, L. L.C.), 124 N.E.3d 787 (Ohio 2018). “R.C. 106.021 ; R.C. 106.041. By reserving the authority to adopt such an invalidating concurrent resolution, the General Assembly retains a legislative veto over agency rulemaking.”
In re Application of Black Fork Wind Energy, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion), 2018-Ohio-5206. “Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate serve on JCARR, and it may recommend that the House and Senate adopt a concurrent resolution to invalidate the proposed rule. R.C. 106.021; R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.