Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 111
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 111.02 (2026)

Bond

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 29, 2013
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 59 - 130th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Before entering upon the discharge of the duties of office, the secretary of state shall give a bond to the state in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, with a surety authorized to do business in the state, conditioned for the faithful discharge of the duties of the office of secretary of state. The bond and the oath of office shall be deposited with and kept by the director of administrative services in the director's office.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2024 · leading case: State ex rel. Martin v. Shabazz, 2024 Ohio 5450 (Ohio 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Martin v. Shabazz, 2024 Ohio 5450 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 14× “East Cleveland Code, § 111.02. {¶ 32} Martin argues that his removal was invalid because the council did not follow Section 111.”
Tapo v. Columbus Bd. of Educ., 509 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio 1987). “” Sections 111.02 through 111.07 provide detailed arbitration procedures.”
State ex rel. Martin v. Shabazz, 2024 Ohio 5450 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 7× “East Cleveland Code, § 111.02. 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 32} Martin argues that his removal was invalid because the council did not follow Section 111.”
Vivas v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. (S.D. Ohio 2021). “1 § 111.02. Plaintiff says that T.F.V. “put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his impairments meet and/or equal Listing 111.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 111.02(a) — 2 cases
State ex rel. Martin v. Shabazz, 2024 Ohio 5450 (Ohio 2024). “East Cleveland Code, § 111.02. {¶ 32} Martin argues that his removal was invalid because the council did not follow Section 111.”
State ex rel. Martin v. Shabazz, 2024 Ohio 5450 (Ohio 2024). “East Cleveland Code, § 111.02. 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 32} Martin argues that his removal was invalid because the council did not follow Section 111.”
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.