Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1923.09 (2026)

Suit tried by county court judge

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(A) If an action under this chapter is not continued, the place of trial is not changed, and neither party demands a jury on the return day of the summons, a judge of the court shall try the cause. After hearing the evidence, if the judge concludes that the complaint is not true, the judge shall enter judgment against the plaintiff for costs. If the judge finds the complaint to be true, the judge shall render a general judgment against the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the premises and costs of suit. If the judge finds the complaint true in part, the judge shall render a judgment for restitution of that part only, and the costs shall be taxed as the judge considers just.

(B) If a judgment is entered under this section in favor of a plaintiff who is a park operator, the judge shall include in the judgment entry authority for the plaintiff to permit, in accordance with section 1923.12 and division (B) of section 1923.13 and division (B) of section 1923.14 of the Revised Code, the removal from the manufactured home park and potential sale, destruction, or transfer of ownership of the defendant's manufactured home, mobile home, or recreational vehicle.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: State v. Dennis, 914 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Dennis, 914 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “{¶ 34} This is not to say that a tenant has the right in all circumstances to remain in an apartment — and to enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize — once he has been served with the required notices and papers. Rather, although there is…”
State ex rel. GMS Mgmt. Co. v. Callahan, 543 N.E.2d 483 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 3× “The key issue presented in this case concerns whether GMS is entitled to have a writ in mandamus issue from this court to compel the Willoughby Municipal Court to proceed with future forcible entry and detainer actions in a summary fashion by entering a “general judgment”…”
Greenlawn Cos. v. Canty, 2024 Ohio 3412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 8× “09(B)7 requires a trial court judge who has found in favor of a plaintiff who is the operator of a mobile home park to include in the judgment entry language authorizing the plaintiff to permit, in accordance with R.C. 1923.12, 1923.13(B), and 1923.”
Dayton Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Kilgore, 2011 Ohio 3283 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “” 7 R.C. 1923.09(A) provides that if after a hearing, “the judge concludes that the complaint is not true, the judge shall enter judgment against the plaintiff for costs.”
State ex rel. Fischer Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. Scott, 2023 Ohio 3891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “Chapter 1923 R.C. 1923.09(A) provides that if the judge finds the complaint for forcible entry and detainer to be true, the judge shall render a general judgment against the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the premises and costs of suit.”
Shaker House, L.L.C. v. Daniel, 2022 Ohio 2778 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “R.C. 1923.09(A) provides that “[i]f the judge finds the complaint to be true, the judge shall render a general judgment against the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the premises and costs of suit.”
Showe Mgt. Corp. v. Mountjoy, 2020 Ohio 2772 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶19} Moreover, the forcible entry and detainer statute specifically provides that "[i]f an action under this chapter is not continued, the place of trial is not changed, and neither party demands a jury on the return day of the summons, a judge of the court shall try the cause.”
Ebbing v. Mathis, 2013 Ohio 3880 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶ 16} R.C. 1923.09(A) provides that, in FED actions tried by the bench, "[i]f the judge finds the complaint to be true, the judge shall render a general judgment against the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the premises and costs of suit.”
Davis v. Conrad Fam. Ltd. P'ship (In Re Davis), 247 B.R. 690 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1999). “Thereafter, in order to effectuate the judgment, the court with jurisdiction over the matter is required to issue a writ of restitution, and within 10 days after receiving the writ, a sheriff or court bailiff is required to execute it by restoring the lessor to possession of the…”
In re GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Unpaid Court Costs, Fees & Delinquencies, 2010 Ohio 2203 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). “” R.C. 1923.09(A). GMS also points out that a writ-of-restitution statute provides that the sheriff shall charge certain fees for the service and return of writs of possession or restitution, “which the court or its clerk shall tax in the bill of costs against the judgment…”
Zipfel v. Reimonenque, 2019 Ohio 5151 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Pursuant to R.C. 1923.09(A), if after a hearing, “the judge concludes that the complaint is not true, the judge shall enter judgment against the plaintiff for costs.”
DNW Props. III, L.L.C. v. Tucker, 2026 Ohio 1342 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 15× “” STANDARD OF REVIEW {¶6} Appellant’s sole assignment of error claims the trial court denied him his right to a jury trial as guaranteed by the United States and Ohio Constitutions, and Civ.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1923.09(A) — 10 cases
State v. Dennis, 914 N.E.2d 1071 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009). “{¶ 34} This is not to say that a tenant has the right in all circumstances to remain in an apartment — and to enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is prepared to recognize — once he has been served with the required notices and papers. Rather, although there is…”
Dayton Metro. Hous. Auth. v. Kilgore, 2011 Ohio 3283 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “” 7 R.C. 1923.09(A) provides that if after a hearing, “the judge concludes that the complaint is not true, the judge shall enter judgment against the plaintiff for costs.”
State ex rel. Fischer Asset Mgt., L.L.C. v. Scott, 2023 Ohio 3891 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “Chapter 1923 R.C. 1923.09(A) provides that if the judge finds the complaint for forcible entry and detainer to be true, the judge shall render a general judgment against the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the premises and costs of suit.”
Shaker House, L.L.C. v. Daniel, 2022 Ohio 2778 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “R.C. 1923.09(A) provides that “[i]f the judge finds the complaint to be true, the judge shall render a general judgment against the defendant, in favor of the plaintiff, for restitution of the premises and costs of suit.”
Showe Mgt. Corp. v. Mountjoy, 2020 Ohio 2772 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “{¶19} Moreover, the forcible entry and detainer statute specifically provides that "[i]f an action under this chapter is not continued, the place of trial is not changed, and neither party demands a jury on the return day of the summons, a judge of the court shall try the cause.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 1923.09(B) — 2 cases
Greenlawn Cos. v. Canty, 2024 Ohio 3412 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “09(B)7 requires a trial court judge who has found in favor of a plaintiff who is the operator of a mobile home park to include in the judgment entry language authorizing the plaintiff to permit, in accordance with R.C. 1923.12, 1923.13(B), and 1923.”
Marysville Estates v. Bruce, 2013 Ohio 4112 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013).
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.