Go Syfert

Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1707.45 (2026)

Burden of proof

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Effective:

October 8, 2001

Latest Legislation:

Senate Bill 32 - 124th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

In any indictment, complaint, or information under section 1707.44 of the Revised Code, it shall not be necessary to negative the existence of facts which would bring a security within section 1707.02 of the Revised Code, or would bring a transaction within section 1707.03, 1707.04, or 1707.06 of the Revised Code, or to negative the existence of facts which would bring a transaction within the exceptions of section 1707.34 of the Revised Code. The burden of proof shall be upon the party claiming the benefits of any of such sections.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: State v. Volpe, 527 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Volpe, 527 N.E.2d 818 (Ohio 1988). “05(A), placing the burden of going forward with evidence of an affirmative defense upon the accused, impliedly repealed R.C. 1707.45, which placed the burden of proving an exemption from compliance with the Ohio Securities Act on the party claiming the exemption.”

Emery v. So-Soft of Ohio, Inc., 199 N.E.2d 120 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964). · cites it 2× “01 to Section 1707.45, Revised Code, that tbe court declare the contract void, that judgment be rendered against defendants for $876.”

Chiles v. M.C. Capital Corp., 642 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). “As a result, defendants had the burden of proving that the transactions in question were exempt pursuant to R.C. 1707.03(M), which included the burden of proving the inapplicability of the exceptions to the exemption, set forth in R.”

State v. Friedman, 590 N.E.2d 909 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “The requirement in R.C. 1707.45 that the defendant bear the burden of proof in claiming an exempt transaction under R.”

State v. Hirsch, 131 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio Ct. App. 1956). “, the last sentence of which reads: “Such sections (§1707.45 R. C.) do not apply to bond investment companies or to the sale of real estate.”

Henneforth v. Seidt, 2025 Ohio 1109 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “R.C. 1707.45; Mathias v. Rosser, 2002-Ohio-2772 , ¶ 27 (10th Dist.”

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.