Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2101.31 (2026)

Determination of questions of fact

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All questions of fact shall be determined by the probate judge, unless the judge orders those questions of fact to be tried before a jury or refers those questions of fact to a special master commissioner as provided in sections 2101.06 and 2101.07 of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1961–2021 · leading case: First Nat'l Bank v. Miami Univ., 699 N.E.2d 523 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
First Nat'l Bank v. Miami Univ., 699 N.E.2d 523 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997). · cites it 9× “” R.C. 2101.31, which governs the determination of issues of fact in proceedings before a probate court, provides that “[a]ll questions *177 of fact shall be determined by the probate judge, unless he orders them tried by a jury * * *.”
Giurbino v. Giurbino, 626 N.E.2d 1017 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1993). · cites it 2× “2d 823, 829-830 , we wrote: “The determination of questions of fact presented to the probate court is governed by R.C. 2101.31, which provides as follows: “ ‘All questions of fact shall be determined by the probate judge, unless he orders them tried by a jury, or referred, as…”
Bobko v. Sagen, 572 N.E.2d 823 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1989). · cites it 2× “The determination of questions of fact presented to the probate court is governed by R.C. 2101.31, which provides as follows: “All questions of fact shall be determined by the probate judge, unless he orders them tried by a jury, or referred, as provided in sections 2101.”
Sosnoswsky v. Koscianski, 2018-Ohio-3045, 118 N.E.3d 403. · cites it 2× “28 of the Revised Code ; a charitable trust or foundation; subject to divisions (A)(1)(t) and (y) of this section, a power of attorney, including, but not limited to, a durable power of attorney; the medical treatment of a competent adult; or a writ of habeas corpus; (c) Subject…”
In re Kister, 2011-Ohio-2678, 955 N.E.2d 1029. · cites it 2× “Indeed, R.C. 2101.31 specifically states: All questions of fact shall be determined by the probate judge, unless the judge orders those questions of fact to be tried before a jury or refers those questions of fact to a special master commissioner as provided in sections 2101.”
Est. of Everhart v. Everhart, 2014-Ohio-2476, 14 N.E.3d 438. · cites it 2× “31 -4- Fayette CA2013-07-019 CA2013-09-026 specifically states: All questions of fact shall be determined by the probate judge, unless the judge orders those questions of fact to be tried before a jury or refers those questions of fact to a special master commissioner as…”
In re Creation of a Park Dist. Within Chester Twp., 2017-Ohio-4031, 91 N.E.3d 26. · cites it 2× “53 to resolve motions and applications regarding the dispute); R.C. 2101.31. The master commissioner resolves issues of fact.”
State ex rel. Russo v. McDonnell, 852 N.E.2d 145 (Ohio 2006). “08 (“The removal proceedings filed in the court of common pleas shall be tried by a judge unless a jury trial is demanded in writing by the officer against whom the complaint has been filed”); R.C. 2101.31 (“All questions of fact shall be determined by the probate judge, unless…”
In re Creation of Park Dist. Within Chester Twp., 2017-Ohio-4031. · cites it 2× “53 to resolve motions and applications regarding the dispute); R.C. 2101.31. The master commissioner resolves issues of fact.”
Filo v. Filo, 2021-Ohio-413. “The statute, however, does not guarantee that such remedies are to be determined by a jury. {¶ 34} Even if this court applies a plain error standard of review, there is no reversible error because Tammy did not have the right to have damages determined by the jury.”
In re Est. of Biris, 172 Ohio St. (N.S.) 38 (Ohio 1961). · cites it 2× “Section 2101.31, Revised Code, provides (except as specified therein) that “all questions of fact shall be determined by the probate judge.”
Maxey v. Mason, 5 Ohio App. Unrep. 68 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1990). “76 and R.C. 2101.31 construed and applied.) *71 "In Am.”
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.