Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 1925
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.15 (2026)

Costs

✓ 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:
November 21, 1967
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 475 - 107th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

The actual disbursements of the prevailing party for filing fees, execution fees, and other court fees may be allowed as costs. No other costs shall be allowed either party except by special order of the court. Costs allowed under this section may be apportioned between the parties, or waived, in whole or in part, as the court determines to be equitable.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2023 · leading case: Kellard v. Cincinnati, 2021-Ohio-1420, 171 N.E.3d 868.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kellard v. Cincinnati, 2021-Ohio-1420, 171 N.E.3d 868. “42(A) (“A court shall award the prevailing party in an action to enforce a child custody determination * * * necessary and reasonable expenses * * * ); R.C. 1925.15 12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS (“The actual disbursements of the prevailing party for filing fees,…”
Greenwood v. Quality Motor Cars by Butch Miller, 2016-Ohio-8172. “, citing R.C. 1925.15. However, the rules of procedure are more relaxed in small claims court.”
Middleton v. Erie Ins., 2022-Ohio-2486. “R.C. 1925.15 (allowing for applicability of Ohio Civil Rules in small claims proceedings "[e]xcept as inconsistent procedures are provided in this chapter or in rules of court adopted in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter").”
Hudson v. Jones, 2023-Ohio-1447. · cites it 2× “{¶38} R.C. 1925.15 governs costs in small claims proceedings and states, “the actual disbursements of the prevailing party for filing fees, execution fees, and other court fees may be allowed as costs.”
Kimes-Brown v. Vinton Cnty. Commissioners, 826 N.E.2d 885 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2005). · cites it 2× “Because R.C. 1925.15 gives a court discretion to award court costs and states nothing about holding an evidentiary hearing, the commissioners and the auditor’s argument is meritless.”
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.