(A) "State" means the state of Ohio, including, but not limited to, the general assembly, the supreme court, the offices of all elected state officers, and all departments, boards, offices, commissions, agencies, institutions, and other instrumentalities of the state. "State" does not include political subdivisions.
(B) "Political subdivisions" means municipal corporations, townships, counties, school districts, and all other bodies corporate and politic responsible for governmental activities only in geographic areas smaller than that of the state to which the sovereign immunity of the state attaches.
(C) "Claim for an award of reparations" or "claim" means a claim for an award of reparations made under sections 2743.51 to 2743.72 of the Revised Code.
(D) "Award of reparations" or "award" means an award made under sections 2743.51 to 2743.72 of the Revised Code.
(E)(1) "Public duty" includes, but is not limited to, any statutory, regulatory, or assumed duty concerning any action or omission of the state involving any of the following:
(a) Permitting, certifying, licensing, inspecting, investigating, supervising, regulating, auditing, monitoring, law enforcement, emergency response activity, or compromising claims;
(b) Supervising, rehabilitating, or liquidating corporations or other business entities.
(2) "Public duty" does not include any action of the state under circumstances in which a special relationship can be established between the state and an injured party as provided in division (A)(3) of section 2743.02 of the Revised Code.
Last updated August 9, 2021 at 11:24 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 241
cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 764 (Ohio 2024).
Smith v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 764 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 6ד{¶ 14} Through the Court of Claims Act, R.C. 2743.01 et seq., the state waived sovereign immunity with respect to certain claims and consented to be sued and have its liability determined in the Court of Claims.”
Smith v. Grady, 960 F. Supp. 2d 735 (S.D. Ohio 2013). · cites it 10דA waiver of a county’s immunity from suit has been “specially authorized” in various provisions of the Ohio Revised Code. Section 305.12 of the Ohio Revised Code sets forth one such instance where a slice of a county’s immunity is waived.”
Butler v. Jordan, 750 N.E.2d 554 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 4ד” R.C. 2743.01(A) of the Court of Claims Act reads the same: “ ‘State’ means the state of Ohio * * *.”
Est. of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 1794 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 7דTherein, DRC maintained public duty immunity, found in R.C. 2743.01 and 2743.02, blocked the suit because its supervising and monitoring of Golsby equated to the performance or non- performance of a public duty.”
Reese v. Ohio State Univ. Hospitals, 451 N.E.2d 1196 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 6דThe effect of appellant’s arguments would be that a dismissal of an action without prejudice after expiration of the limitation period of R.C. 2743.16 has the same effect as a determination upon the merits and bars the bringing of any further action with respect to the same…”
Racing Guild of Ohio, Local 304 v. Ohio State Racing Comm'n, 503 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio 1986). · cites it 5דFor purposes of the Court of Claims Act, “state” is broadly defined in R.C. 2743.01(A) as follows: “ ‘State’ means the state of Ohio, including, but not limited to, the general assembly, the supreme court, the offices of all elected state officers, and all departments, boards,…”
Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Dep't of Human Servs., 603 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 10דthe claimant in a civil action as described in division (A)(1) of this section also files a claim for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other equitable relief against the state that arises out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the civil action described in…”
Cotten v. Court of Common Pleas, 2018 Ohio 3948 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6ד18, 1975) ("[C]ounties are not a state department or agency within any reasonable interpretation of [R.C. 2743.01]."). Thus, Cotten's amended complaint failed to name a proper defendant within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.”
Stack v. Karnes, 750 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Ohio 2010). · cites it 4ד22 provides a “waiver” to the grant of state provided immunity to counties under Section 2743.01. See also Turner, 671 F.Supp.”
Alternatives Unlimited-Special, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Educ., 861 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4דcase, this court observed: R.C. 2743.01(A) defines “state” as: [T]he state of Ohio, including, without limitation, its departments, boards, offices, commissions, agencies, institutions, and other instrumentalities.”
Cmty. Ins. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 750 N.E.2d 573 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 3דIn addition, R.C. 2743.01 further distinguishes the state from political subdivisions when it defines the two entities.”
Racing Guild of Ohio, Local 304 v. Ohio State Racing Comm'n, 503 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio 1986). “For purposes of the Court of Claims Act, “state” is broadly defined in R.C. 2743.01(A) as follows: “ ‘State’ means the state of Ohio, including, but not limited to, the general assembly, the supreme court, the offices of all elected state officers, and all departments, boards,…”
Smith v. Ohio State Univ., 2024 Ohio 764 (Ohio 2024). “{¶ 14} Through the Court of Claims Act, R.C. 2743.01 et seq., the state waived sovereign immunity with respect to certain claims and consented to be sued and have its liability determined in the Court of Claims.”
Upjohn Co. v. Ohio Dep't of Human Servs., 603 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “the claimant in a civil action as described in division (A)(1) of this section also files a claim for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, or other equitable relief against the state that arises out of the same circumstances that gave rise to the civil action described in…”
Alternatives Unlimited-Special, Inc. v. Ohio Dep't of Educ., 861 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). “case, this court observed: R.C. 2743.01(A) defines “state” as: [T]he state of Ohio, including, without limitation, its departments, boards, offices, commissions, agencies, institutions, and other instrumentalities.”
Cotten v. Court of Common Pleas, 2018 Ohio 3948 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “18, 1975) ("[C]ounties are not a state department or agency within any reasonable interpretation of [R.C. 2743.01]."). Thus, Cotten's amended complaint failed to name a proper defendant within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.”
Smith v. Grady, 960 F. Supp. 2d 735 (S.D. Ohio 2013). “A waiver of a county’s immunity from suit has been “specially authorized” in various provisions of the Ohio Revised Code. Section 305.12 of the Ohio Revised Code sets forth one such instance where a slice of a county’s immunity is waived.”
Butler v. Jordan, 750 N.E.2d 554 (Ohio 2001). “” R.C. 2743.01(A) of the Court of Claims Act reads the same: “ ‘State’ means the state of Ohio * * *.”
Stack v. Karnes, 750 F. Supp. 2d 892 (S.D. Ohio 2010). “22 provides a “waiver” to the grant of state provided immunity to counties under Section 2743.01. See also Turner, 671 F.Supp.”
Cotten v. Court of Common Pleas, 2018 Ohio 3948 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). “18, 1975) ("[C]ounties are not a state department or agency within any reasonable interpretation of [R.C. 2743.01]."). Thus, Cotten's amended complaint failed to name a proper defendant within the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.”
Est. of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 1794 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Therein, DRC maintained public duty immunity, found in R.C. 2743.01 and 2743.02, blocked the suit because its supervising and monitoring of Golsby equated to the performance or non- performance of a public duty.”
Est. of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 1794 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Therein, DRC maintained public duty immunity, found in R.C. 2743.01 and 2743.02, blocked the suit because its supervising and monitoring of Golsby equated to the performance or non- performance of a public duty.”
Est. of Tokes v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2019 Ohio 1794 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). “Therein, DRC maintained public duty immunity, found in R.C. 2743.01 and 2743.02, blocked the suit because its supervising and monitoring of Golsby equated to the performance or non- performance of a public duty.”
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.