Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 2907
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.37 (2026)

Injunction - nuisance

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
January 1, 1974
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 511 - 109th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Where it appears that section 2907.31 or 2907.32 of the Revised Code is being or is about to be violated, the chief legal officer of the jurisdiction in which the violation is taking place or is about to take place may bring an action to enjoin the violation. The defendant, upon his request, is entitled to trial on the merits within five days after joinder of the issues, and the court shall render judgment within five days after trial is concluded.

(B) Premises used or occupied for repeated violations of section 2907.31 or 2907.32 of the Revised Code constitute a nuisance subject to abatement pursuant to sections 3767.01 to 3767.99 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1990–2019 · leading case: State ex rel. Pizza v. Strope, 560 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Pizza v. Strope, 560 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 2× “) R.C. 2907.37(B) brings commercial establishments engaged in certain activities within the purview of R.”
State Ex Rel. Eckstein v. Video Express, 695 N.E.2d 38 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997). · cites it 4× “On March 3, the prosecutor filed a complaint under R.C. 2907.37(A) to enjoin Rhonemus from renting the two videotapes.”
State v. Turner, 805 N.E.2d 124 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). “01 to R.C. 2907.37 is defined as “vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus,…”
State Ex Rel. Eckstein v. Midwest Pride IV, 713 N.E.2d 1055 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1998). · cites it 2× “Midwest offers no apposite legal authority in support of its proposition that “repeated violations” must occur no more than two years apart, nor have we found any.”
State v. Kennedy, 2019-Ohio-34. “Instead appellant relies upon cases which make clear that R.C. 2907.37 requires that the record contains an explanation of circumstances sufficient to support a conviction.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.37(A): 1 case
State Ex Rel. Eckstein v. Video Express, 695 N.E.2d 38 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997). “On March 3, the prosecutor filed a complaint under R.C. 2907.37(A) to enjoin Rhonemus from renting the two videotapes.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2907.37(B): 3 cases
State ex rel. Pizza v. Strope, 560 N.E.2d 765 (Ohio 1990). “) R.C. 2907.37(B) brings commercial establishments engaged in certain activities within the purview of R.”
State Ex Rel. Eckstein v. Video Express, 695 N.E.2d 38 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1997). “On March 3, the prosecutor filed a complaint under R.C. 2907.37(A) to enjoin Rhonemus from renting the two videotapes.”
State Ex Rel. Eckstein v. Midwest Pride IV, 713 N.E.2d 1055 (Ohio Ct. App. 12th Dist. 1998). “Midwest offers no apposite legal authority in support of its proposition that “repeated violations” must occur no more than two years apart, nor have we found any.”
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.