(A)(1) In addition to other jurisdiction granted a county court in the Revised Code, a county court has jurisdiction of all misdemeanor cases. A county court has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary hearings in felony cases, to bind over alleged felons to the court of common pleas, and to take other action in felony cases as authorized by Criminal Rule 5.
(2) A judge of a county court does not have the authority to dismiss a criminal complaint, charge, information, or indictment solely at the request of the complaining witness and over the objection of the prosecuting attorney, village solicitor, city director of law, or other chief legal officer who is responsible for the prosecution of the case.
(B) A county court has jurisdiction of the violation of a vehicle parking or standing ordinance, resolution, or regulation if a local authority, as defined in division (D) of section 4521.01 of the Revised Code, has specified that it is not to be considered a criminal offense, if the violation is committed within the limits of the court's territory, and if the violation is not required to be handled by a parking violations bureau or joint parking violations bureau pursuant to Chapter 4521. of the Revised Code. A county court does not have jurisdiction over violations of ordinances, resolutions, or regulations that are required to be handled by a parking violations bureau or joint parking violations bureau pursuant to that chapter.
A county court also has jurisdiction of an appeal from a judgment or default judgment entered pursuant to Chapter 4521. of the Revised Code, as authorized by division (D) of section 4521.08 of the Revised Code. Any such appeal shall be placed on the regular docket of the court and shall be determined by a judge of the court.
(C) A county court has exclusive jurisdiction over every civil action concerning a violation of a state traffic law or a municipal traffic ordinance, if the violation is committed within the limits of the court's territory.
(D) As used in this section, "violation of a state traffic law or a municipal traffic ordinance" has the same meaning as in section 1901.20 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2018–2022 · leading case: Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502.
Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502. · cites it 11ד20(A)(1), R.C. 1907.02(C); and 4) requiring municipalities to provide advance and non-recoverable court deposits to cover “all applicable court costs and fees” for civil actions related to the photo-monitoring program, R.”
State ex rel. Fiser v. Kolesar (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-5483, 172 N.E.3d 1. · cites it 2ד012; misdemeanors and certain aspects of felony proceedings, R.C. 1907.02(A)(1); certain parking and traffic 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO offenses, R.”
State v. Dahlberg, 2021-Ohio-550. “” {¶43} As to the jurisdiction of the Western County Court, pursuant to R.C. 1907.02(A)(1): “[i]n addition to other jurisdiction granted a county court in the Revised Code, a county court has jurisdiction of all misdemeanor cases.”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021-Ohio-61, 166 N.E.3d 632. “R.C. 1907.02(C) as enacted by H.B. 62 sets forth jurisdiction for criminal cases and parking violations.”
Dayton v. State, 2022-Ohio-4412, 203 N.E.3d 758. · cites it 10ד20(A)(1), R.C. 1907.02(C); and 4) requiring municipalities to provide advance and non-recoverable court deposits to cover “all applicable court costs and fees” for civil actions related to the photo-monitoring program, R.”
State v. Cayavec, 2020-Ohio-3610. “01; R.C. 1907.02(A)(1). {¶30} Appellant contends that the conduct giving rise to his menacing by stalking conviction occurred in Poland, Ohio, and, as a consequence, Struthers Municipal Court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution.”
State v. Thompson, 2019-Ohio-4835. “01; R.C. 1907.02(A)(1). Issues relating to subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed by this court de novo and can be raised at any time.”
State v. Craciun, 2018-Ohio-5185. · cites it 3ד{¶31} It is incumbent upon the trial court, when weighing evidence before it and determining the appropriateness of discharge, to ensure that all elements of the pertinent offense or defense are met.”
State v. Martin, 2018-Ohio-1023. “R.C. 1907.02(A)(1). In addition, Trooper Souders testified that appellant’s traffic offenses occurred within a township, not a municipality; therefore, the crimes took place within the county court’s territorial jurisdiction.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1907.02(A)(1): 6 cases
State ex rel. Fiser v. Kolesar (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-5483, 172 N.E.3d 1. “012; misdemeanors and certain aspects of felony proceedings, R.C. 1907.02(A)(1); certain parking and traffic 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO offenses, R.”
State v. Dahlberg, 2021-Ohio-550. “” {¶43} As to the jurisdiction of the Western County Court, pursuant to R.C. 1907.02(A)(1): “[i]n addition to other jurisdiction granted a county court in the Revised Code, a county court has jurisdiction of all misdemeanor cases.”
State v. Cayavec, 2020-Ohio-3610. “01; R.C. 1907.02(A)(1). {¶30} Appellant contends that the conduct giving rise to his menacing by stalking conviction occurred in Poland, Ohio, and, as a consequence, Struthers Municipal Court had both subject matter and personal jurisdiction over his criminal prosecution.”
State v. Thompson, 2019-Ohio-4835. “01; R.C. 1907.02(A)(1). Issues relating to subject matter jurisdiction are reviewed by this court de novo and can be raised at any time.”
State v. Craciun, 2018-Ohio-5185. “{¶31} It is incumbent upon the trial court, when weighing evidence before it and determining the appropriateness of discharge, to ensure that all elements of the pertinent offense or defense are met.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1907.02(B): 1 case
State ex rel. Fiser v. Kolesar (Slip Opinion), 2020-Ohio-5483, 172 N.E.3d 1. “012; misdemeanors and certain aspects of felony proceedings, R.C. 1907.02(A)(1); certain parking and traffic 7 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO offenses, R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1907.02(C): 3 cases
Dayton v. State, 2021-Ohio-967, 170 N.E.3d 502. “20(A)(1), R.C. 1907.02(C); and 4) requiring municipalities to provide advance and non-recoverable court deposits to cover “all applicable court costs and fees” for civil actions related to the photo-monitoring program, R.”
Newburgh Hts. v. State, 2021-Ohio-61, 166 N.E.3d 632. “R.C. 1907.02(C) as enacted by H.B. 62 sets forth jurisdiction for criminal cases and parking violations.”
Dayton v. State, 2022-Ohio-4412, 203 N.E.3d 758. “20(A)(1), R.C. 1907.02(C); and 4) requiring municipalities to provide advance and non-recoverable court deposits to cover “all applicable court costs and fees” for civil actions related to the photo-monitoring program, 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.