Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2739
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2739.01 (2026)

Libel and slander

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 1, 1953
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 1 - 100th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state, generally, that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the plaintiff. If the allegation is denied, the plaintiff must prove the facts, showing that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of him. In such action it is not necessary to set out any obscene word, but it is sufficient to state its import.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1965–2024 · leading case: Crenshaw v. Howard, 2022 Ohio 3914 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Crenshaw v. Howard, 2022 Ohio 3914 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “R.C. 2739.01 provides: In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state, generally, that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the plaintiff.”
Crenshaw v. Jones, 2022 Ohio 3913 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “” Appellant alleges that appellee “has since January 1, 2021 posted numerous slanderous, libelous, and defaming statements on social media multiple times a day with intent to harass, annoy, and embarrass [her] in violation of R.C. 2739.01.” Appellant further alleged that…”
F & J Enter., Inc. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 373 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Ohio 1974). · cites it 6× “Ohio Revised Code § 2739.01 provides in pertinent part : In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state, generally, that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the plaintiff.”
Baxter Travenol Labs., Inc. v. LeMay, 93 F.R.D. 379 (S.D. Ohio 1981). · cites it 2× “” O.R.C. § 2739.01. Case law interpreting this provision has held that neither the time or place, Fenyn v.”
Hall v. United Labs, Inc., 31 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (N.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 2× “O.R.C. § 2739.01 (Banks-Baldwin 1953). Ohio courts have established that in order to state a cause of action, Plaintiff must prove the following: (1) that the claimed words were published; (2) that the *1044 words were published by the Defendants; (3) that the words were…”
Driscoll v. Block, 210 N.E.2d 899 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2× “” Section 2739.01, Revised Code, defines the necessary allegations in a petition for libel.”
Boden v. Anaconda Minerals Co., 757 F. Supp. 848 (S.D. Ohio 1990). “Ohio Revised Code § 2739.01 provides for slander: In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state, generally, that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the plaintiff.”
Wilson v. Moss, 537 F. Supp. 281 (S.D. Ohio 1982). · cites it 2× “Again, while Ohio state law specifically provides for actions based on libel and slander, see, Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2739.01 (Page), there is no indication in the Third Cause of Action that Plaintiff is seeking relief directly under the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
Oak Hill Inv. Co. v. Jablonski, 605 N.E.2d 998 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). “16(B) (Count One), damages to the Defendant’s vehicle caused by Plaintiff’s failure to provide adequate security (Count Two — no evidence *649 adduced at trial and Defendant therefore will not argue on Count Two, as it was not proven) and common law fraud (Count Three).”…”
Conway v. Int'l Ass'n of Heat & Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers, 209 F. Supp. 2d 731 (N.D. Ohio 2002). “Ohio Revised Code § 2739.01 states, in pertinent part, In an action for a libel or slander, it is sufficient to state, generally, that the defamatory matter was published or spoken of the plaintiff.”
State v. Brown, 2022 Ohio 4347 (Ohio 2022). “, a defamatory statement 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO that has been published, see R.C. 2739.01—but must be acquitted if the jury finds that the statement was true and published with good motives for justifiable ends.”
Johnson v. Keybank, 2014 Ohio 120 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). “49,1 libel pursuant to R.C. 2739.01, and conspiracy to defraud, we find that such claims are preempted by the FCRA.”
Show all 20 citing cases →
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.