Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 117.18 (2026)

Auditor and designated employee - powers

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

July 1, 2009

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 525 - 127th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) The auditor of state and any employee designated by the auditor of state may, in the performance of any audit, issue and serve subpoenas and compulsory process or direct service thereof by a sheriff or constable, compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of records, administer oaths, and apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to punish for disobedience of subpoena, refusal to be sworn, refusal to answer as a witness, or refusal to produce records. Sheriffs and constables shall receive the same fees as for like services in similar cases. Witnesses shall receive the same fees and mileage as witnesses are provided under section 119.094 of the Revised Code.

(B) The auditor of state and any employee designated by the auditor of state may exercise any authority granted by this section on behalf of any public accountant conducting an audit pursuant to this chapter when so requested.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Petro v. North Coast Villas Ltd., 735 N.E.2d 985 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Petro v. North Coast Villas Ltd., 735 N.E.2d 985 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2000). · cites it 7× “The trial court determined that, as a matter of law, the State Auditor’s subpoena power, as set forth in R.C. 117.18, is limited by R.C. 117.10; therefore, the court found that the subpoena power does not extend to private, third-party entities not directly receiving money from…”

State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Ass'n v. Montgomery, 800 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 2003). “See R.C. 117.18(A). “[T]he State Auditor has broad investigatory powers, and after the facts and circumstances surrounding the [questioned] expenditure have been fully developed, the duty to determine whether public monies have been expended illegally.”

Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 108 Ohio St. 3d 419 (2006). · cites it 4× “We are also asked to determine the scope of the Auditor’s authority to issue subpoenas to third parties pursuant to R.C. 117.18. We hold that under the facts of this case, the State Auditor acted within her authority when she issued subpoenas relating to appellant Correctional…”

Petro v. Stoldt, 739 N.E.2d 13 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2000). “On October 7, 1999, 2 the Auditor filed an application to enforce an administrative subpoena, pursuant to R.C. 117.18, in the- Seneca County Court of Common Pleas.”

Cleveland v. Amazing Tickets, Inc., 2018-Ohio-743. “{¶6} Generally, an appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard when reviewing a trial court’s decision to enforce or quash an administrative subpoena. Salkin at ¶ 6, citing Petro v.”

Ohio Rev. Code § 117.18(A): 2 cases

State ex rel. Ministerial Day Care Ass'n v. Montgomery, 800 N.E.2d 18 (Ohio 2003). “See R.C. 117.18(A). “[T]he State Auditor has broad investigatory powers, and after the facts and circumstances surrounding the [questioned] expenditure have been fully developed, the duty to determine whether public monies have been expended illegally.”

Oriana House, Inc. v. Montgomery, 108 Ohio St. 3d 419 (2006). “We are also asked to determine the scope of the Auditor’s authority to issue subpoenas to third parties pursuant to R.C. 117.18. We hold that under the facts of this case, the State Auditor acted within her authority when she issued subpoenas relating to appellant Correctional…”

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.