(A)(1) Subject to division (A)(2) of this section, a prosecuting attorney of a county may designate any employee of a county department of job and family services to act as the prosecuting attorney's representative in the commencement and prosecution or defense of any action in the small claims division of a municipal or county court on behalf of the department.
(2)(a) If the prosecuting attorney designates as the prosecuting attorney's representative an employee of the department who is not an attorney, the employee may file and present the claim or defense of the department in the action if the employee does not, in the absence of the representation of the department by an attorney, engage in cross-examination, argument, or other acts of advocacy.
(b) If the prosecuting attorney designates as the prosecuting attorney's representative an employee of the department who is an attorney, the employee may file and prosecute or defend fully the claim or defense of the department in the action.
(B) Division (A) of this section does not preclude the appearance of the prosecuting attorney on behalf of a county department of job and family services as provided in section 309.09 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
All. Grp., Inc. v. Rosenfield, 685 N.E.2d 570 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “2d 1360 , the Fourth District Court of Appeals held R.C. 1925.18, a parallel provision to R.C.”
Washington Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Rutter, 651 N.E.2d 1360 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 13× “The following assignment of error is posited for our review: “The [tjrial [cjourt erred in finding R.C. 1925.18 unconstitutional and dismissing [pjlaintiff s complaint.”
Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 2025 Ohio 606 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “ve jurisdiction in any of the following: (i) Libel, slander, replevin, malicious prosecution, and abuse of process actions; (ii) Actions on any claim brought by an assignee or agent, except a claim to recover taxes that is filed by any authorized employee of a political…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.18(A): 1 case
Washington Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Rutter, 651 N.E.2d 1360 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
“The following assignment of error is posited for our review: “The [tjrial [cjourt erred in finding R.C. 1925.18 unconstitutional and dismissing [pjlaintiff s complaint.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 1925.18(A)(1): 1 case
Washington Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Rutter, 651 N.E.2d 1360 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
“The following assignment of error is posited for our review: “The [tjrial [cjourt erred in finding R.C. 1925.18 unconstitutional and dismissing [pjlaintiff s complaint.”
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.