(A) Subject to division (B) of this section, when declaratory relief is sought under this chapter in an action or proceeding, all persons who have or claim any interest that would be affected by the declaration shall be made parties to the action or proceeding. Except as provided in division (B) of this section, a declaration shall not prejudice the rights of persons who are not made parties to the action or proceeding. In any action or proceeding that involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, the municipal corporation shall be made a party and shall be heard, and, if any statute or the ordinance or franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general also shall be served with a copy of the complaint in the action or proceeding and shall be heard. In any action or proceeding that involves the validity of a township resolution, the township shall be made a party and shall be heard.
(B) A declaratory judgment or decree that a court of record enters in an action or proceeding under this chapter between an insurer and a holder of a policy of liability insurance issued by the insurer and that resolves an issue as to whether the policy's coverage provisions extend to an injury, death, or loss to person or property that an insured under the policy allegedly tortiously caused shall be deemed to have the binding legal effect described in division (C)(2) of section 3929.06 of the Revised Code and to also have binding legal effect upon any person who seeks coverage as an assignee of the insured's rights under the policy in relation to the injury, death, or loss involved. This division applies whether or not an assignee is made a party to the action or proceeding for declaratory relief and notwithstanding any contrary common law principles of res judicata or adjunct principles of collateral estoppel.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 203
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Cicco v. Stockmaster, 728 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio 2000).
Cicco v. Stockmaster, 728 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 48דThe issue before us is what constitutes proper service upon the Attorney General for purposes of former R.C. 2721.12 in a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of a statute, ordinance, or franchise.”
Cicco v. Stockmaster, 89 Ohio St. 3d 95 (2000). · cites it 51ד41 in order to vest a trial court with jurisdiction under former R.C. 2721.12. A party who is challenging the constitutionality of a statute must assert the claim in the complaint (or other initial pleading) or an amendment thereto, and must serve the pleading upon the Attorney…”
George Shima Buick, Inc. v. Ferencak, 91 Ohio St. 3d 1211 (2001). · cites it 11דPursuant to Cicco’s interpretation of R.C. 2721.12, when a party challenges the constitutionality of a state statute, the issue must be framed in a complaint or other initial pleading, such as a counterclaim or cross-claim, and the party asserting the claim must serve the…”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010-Ohio-3264, 126 Ohio St. 3d 138. · cites it 11ד{¶ 20} R.C. 2721.12(A) discusses necessary parties in declaratory judgment actions.”
Grover v. Bartsch, 866 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006). · cites it 7ד1 in order to vest a trial court with jurisdiction under former R.C. 2721.12.” Id. at syllabus. The following year, the court employed an expansive interpretation of Cicco and dismissed an appeal sua sponte when the constitutionality of a statute had been raised in a motion to…”
Cincinnati v. Fourth Natl. Realty, L.L.C., 2019-Ohio-1868. · cites it 12דIt argued that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider Fourth National’s counterclaim because Fourth National had failed to serve the Ohio Attorney General with notice of its suit, as was required by R.C. 2721.12; that Fourth National lacked standing to…”
Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. State, 2010-Ohio-6037, 128 Ohio St. 3d 41. · cites it 8דThus, Colerain maintains that Rumpke is challenging the amendment to R.”
Mayer v. Bristow, 740 N.E.2d 656 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 6דWhile no one questions the appellate court’s authority to determine the legality or constitutionality of the trial court’s August 20, 1998 order, a question was raised at oral argument whether the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of R.”
State v. Kepling, 2020-Ohio-6888. · cites it 4דConclusion {¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.”
Ohioans for Fair Representation, Inc. v. Taft, 616 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio 1993). · cites it 7דR.C. 2721.12 requires service of a copy of the proceeding on the Attorney General when a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute in a declaratory judgment action.”
Cool v. Frenchko, 2022-Ohio-3747, 200 N.E.3d 562. · cites it 3ד] The trial court erred in granting Defendant-Appellees Secretary of State, Auditor of State and Attorney General (collectively referred to by the trial court as the "State Defendants") and Defendant-Appellee's Ohio Department of Education respective Motions to Dismiss for…”
Hinton v. Ohio Bureau of Sentence Computation, 2018-Ohio-237, 105 N.E.3d 457. · cites it 6ד{¶ 7} As for jurisdiction over Hinton's claim in declaratory judgment, we review the nature of his claim, whether prior case law permits him to use declaratory judgment as a means to seek relief, and whether he has met the statutory requirements of declaratory judgment pursuant…”
Grover v. Bartsch, 866 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006). “1 in order to vest a trial court with jurisdiction under former R.C. 2721.12.” Id. at syllabus. The following year, the court employed an expansive interpretation of Cicco and dismissed an appeal sua sponte when the constitutionality of a statute had been raised in a motion to…”
State v. Kepling, 2020-Ohio-6888. “Conclusion {¶16} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant in the particulars assigned and argued, the judgment of the Hancock County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.”
Cicco v. Stockmaster, 728 N.E.2d 1066 (Ohio 2000). “The issue before us is what constitutes proper service upon the Attorney General for purposes of former R.C. 2721.12 in a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of a statute, ordinance, or franchise.”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010-Ohio-3264, 126 Ohio St. 3d 138. “{¶ 20} R.C. 2721.12(A) discusses necessary parties in declaratory judgment actions.”
Est. of Heintzelman v. Air Experts, Inc., 2010-Ohio-3264, 126 Ohio St. 3d 138. “{¶ 20} R.C. 2721.12(A) discusses necessary parties in declaratory judgment 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.