Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1923.10 (2026)

Trial by jury

✓ 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:

March 17, 1987

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 158 - 116th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

If a jury is demanded by either party in an action under this chapter, until the impaneling of the jury, the proceedings shall be in all respects as in other cases. The jury shall be sworn to try and determine whether the complaint, naming the plaintiff, about to be presented to them, is true according to the evidence. If the jury finds that the complaint is true, it shall render a general verdict against the defendant. If the jury finds that the complaint is not true, it shall render a general verdict in favor of the defendant. If the jury finds that the complaint is true in part, it shall render a verdict setting forth the facts that it finds are true.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: T & R Props., Inc. v. Wimberly, 2020-Ohio-4279, 158 N.E.3d 137.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

T & R Props., Inc. v. Wimberly, 2020-Ohio-4279, 158 N.E.3d 137. “R.C. 1923.10. Moreover, nothing in the statutes governing trials in forcible entry and detainer actions provides for a limited or abbreviated trial.”

Pernell v. Southall Realty, 416 U.S. 363 (1974). “Actions § 745 (1963); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1923.10 (1968).”

Fodor v. First Nat'l Supermarkets, Inc., 589 N.E.2d 17 (Ohio 1992). “” R.C. 1923.10. *493 Appellant’s attempt to regain possession through the equity jurisdiction of the court was not only an erroneous method to seek relief, but also denied appellee its statutory right to a trial by jury.”

Showe Mgt. Corp. v. Mountjoy, 2020-Ohio-2772, 154 N.E.3d 141. “R.C. 1923.10; Fodor v. First Natl. Supermarkets, 63 Ohio St.”

Martin v. Rogers, 536 N.E.2d 665 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1987). “34 (citing R.C. 1923.10), the bond requirement may be regarded as a reasonable one which furthers the policy of Ohio that seeks expeditious resolution of forcible entry and detainer cases and the protection of all parties’ interests.”

State ex rel. GMS Mgmt. Co. v. Callahan, 583 N.E.2d 1339 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1989). “34 (citing R.C. 1923.10), the bond requirement may be regarded as a reasonable one which furthers the policy of Ohio that seeks expeditious resolution of forcible entry and detainer cases and the protection of all parties’ interests.”

Burton Carol Mgt., L.L.C. v. Tessmer, 2015-Ohio-4321. · cites it 3× “{¶32} Notwithstanding the foregoing, I further note that in forcible entry and detainer cases, R.C. 1923.10 provides for jury trials. R.”

Preston v. Thornton, 2021-Ohio-1178. · cites it 2× “3d 489, 492 (1992), citing R.C. 1923.10. See also Showe Mgmt. Corp. v.”

Maynard v. Barkley, 2025-Ohio-1890. “Legal Standard {¶15} R.C. 1923.10 indicates that the “[p]arties to a forcible entry and detainer action have the right to a jury trial.”

DNW Props. III, L.L.C. v. Tucker, 2026-Ohio-1342. “Chapter 1923 - Forcible Entry and Detainer Actions {¶15} Ohio Revised Code Chapter 1923 sets forth the statutory framework for forcible entry and detainer actions.”

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.