Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1315.16 (2026)

Enforcement powers of superintendent

✓ 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:

April 6, 2007

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 454 - 126th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) The superintendent of financial institutions may do both of the following:

(1) Summon and compel, by order or subpoena, witnesses to appear before the superintendent, deputy superintendent, examiner, or attorney examiner, and testify under oath regarding the affairs of a licensee or other person;

(2) Compel, by order or subpoena, the production of any record, book, paper, document, item, or other thing pertaining to a licensee or other person.

(B) The superintendent shall serve an order or subpoena issued pursuant to division (A) of this section in any manner provided by section 1315.161 of the Revised Code.

(C) If a person fails to comply with an order or subpoena of the superintendent or refuses to testify to any matter regarding which the person is lawfully interrogated before the superintendent, on application of the superintendent, the court of common pleas of the county in which the person resides or in which the principal place of business of the person is located, or a judge of the court, shall compel compliance by attachment proceedings as for contempt in the case of noncompliance with a subpoena issued from the court or refusal to testify in the court.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1956–1961 · leading case: Houston-Starr Co. v. Berea Brick & Tile Co., 197 F. Supp. 492 (N.D. Ohio 1961).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Houston-Starr Co. v. Berea Brick & Tile Co., 197 F. Supp. 492 (N.D. Ohio 1961). · cites it 2× “Was there an implied warranty of fitness ? Section 1315.16, Ohio Rev. Code, provides, in pertinent part: “(A) When the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and it appears that the buyer relies on…”

Delta Tank Mfg. Co. v. Weatherhead Co., 150 F. Supp. 525 (N.D. Ohio 1957). “In Pennsylvania there is an implied warranty of fitness in connection with the sale. 69 Purdon’s Statutes, §§ 123, 124.”

Markovich v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 149 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1958). “Also, where the buyer makes known the purpose for which the goods are purchased and relies on the seller’s skill or judgment to deliver goods reasonably fit for such purpose (§1315.16 R. C.), there is an implied warranty that the goods thus purchased are reasonably suitable for…”

Am. Radiator & Stand. Sanitary Corp. v. Titan Valve & Mfg. Co., 144 F. Supp. 841 (N.D. Ohio 1956). · cites it 2× “To avoid the effect of the application of the provisions of subsection (C) of §1315.16 E. €., American contends that its tests were not designed to ascertain whether a safety valve would work under conditions of actual operation and that of necessity it relied upon Titan to…”

Allen v. Grafton, 170 Ohio St. 249 (1960). · cites it 6× “This court has held in effect that where, as in the instant case, a patron of a restaurant orders a meal and it is served to him, there is a sale of what is served by the restaurant to the patron, and, by reason of that portion of the Uniform Sales Act that is now Section…”

J. A. Myers Co. v. Miller, 159 N.E.2d 372 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). “See Paragraph “A” of §1315.16 R. C. We have examined the well-considered opinion of Judge Reynolds in this case, and are in accord with his conclusions of law and fact expressed therein.”

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.