(A) No law enforcement officer shall negligently do any of the following:
(1) Fail to serve a lawful warrant without delay;
(2) Fail to prevent or halt the commission of an offense or to apprehend an offender, when it is in the law enforcement officer's power to do so alone or with available assistance.
(B) No law enforcement, ministerial, or judicial officer shall negligently fail to perform a lawful duty in a criminal case or proceeding.
(C) No officer, having charge of a detention facility, shall negligently do any of the following:
(1) Allow the detention facility to become littered or unsanitary;
(2) Fail to provide persons confined in the detention facility with adequate food, clothing, bedding, shelter, and medical attention;
(3) Fail to control an unruly prisoner, or to prevent intimidation of or physical harm to a prisoner by another;
(4) Allow a prisoner to escape;
(5) Fail to observe any lawful and reasonable regulation for the management of the detention facility.
(D) No public official of the state shall recklessly create a deficiency, incur a liability, or expend a greater sum than is appropriated by the general assembly for the use in any one year of the department, agency, or institution of the state with which the public official is connected.
(E) No public servant shall recklessly fail to perform a duty expressly imposed by law with respect to the public servant's office, or recklessly do any act expressly forbidden by law with respect to the public servant's office.
(F) Whoever violates this section is guilty of dereliction of duty, a misdemeanor of the second degree.
(G) Except as otherwise provided by law, a public servant who is a county treasurer; county auditor; township fiscal officer; city auditor; city treasurer; village fiscal officer; village clerk-treasurer; village clerk; in the case of a municipal corporation having a charter that designates an officer who, by virtue of the charter, has duties and functions similar to those of the city or village officers referred to in this section, the officer so designated by the charter; school district treasurer; fiscal officer of a community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code; treasurer of a science, technology, engineering, and mathematics school established under Chapter 3326. of the Revised Code; or fiscal officer of a college-preparatory boarding school established under Chapter 3328. of the Revised Code and is convicted of or pleads guilty to dereliction of duty is disqualified from holding any public office, employment, or position of trust in this state for four years following the date of conviction or of entry of the plea, and is not entitled to hold any public office until any repayment or restitution required by the court is satisfied.
(H) As used in this section, "public servant" includes the following:
(1) An officer or employee of a contractor as defined in section 9.08 of the Revised Code;
(2) A fiscal officer employed by the operator of a community school established under Chapter 3314. of the Revised Code or by the operator of a college-preparatory boarding school established under Chapter 3328. of the Revised Code.
Evans v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 2018 Ohio 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 17ד44(C)(2) as a claim. The complaint does not cite either R.”
Argabrite v. Neer, 2016 Ohio 8374 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2ד03(A)(1), it also subjects that officer to potential criminal liability for negligently failing to do so, R.C. 2921.44(A)(2). {¶ 16} An officer’s role in our society creates a unique lens through which to view his or her actions and through which to determine whether those…”
Johari v. City of Columbus Police Dep't, 186 F. Supp. 2d 821 (S.D. Ohio 2002). · cites it 7דFinally, Plaintiffs claim of dereliction of duty under O.R.C. § 2921.44 also fails. Section 2921.”
State v. Mole (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5124 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2דBut we do not agree that a person’s status as a peace officer justifies the imposition of different sexual-conduct standards in circumstances in which the officer’s status is irrelevant.”
Williams v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 587 N.E.2d 870 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 6דThe trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant in failing to find that Ohio Revised Code, Section 2921.44(C)(3) and (5), creates a safe controlled environment in which the appellant is not permitted either expressly or by implication to assume the risk of another inmate…”
Peart v. Seneca Cnty., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Ohio 2011). · cites it 11ד1 He also asserts state law claims for negligence and violation of O.R.C. § 2921.44. Seneca County, its former Sheriff, Thomas Steyer, and its Commissioners, Benjamin Nutter, David Sauber, Sr.”
Baker v. State, 502 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5ד” Appellant contends, as he did below, that R.C. 2921.44(C) establishes ap-pellees’ duty of care and that the decision of Reynolds v.”
Frash v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2016 Ohio 360 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 9דAlthough R.C. 2921.44 is a criminal statute, not a stand-alone civil cause of action, we recognize that "[w]here a legislative enactment imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection of others, and [a person's] neglect to perform that duty proximately results in…”
State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten, 637 N.E.2d 306 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 2ד94-670, dismissal of Carter’s state claim, based on a violation of R.C. 2921.44(C)(2), was erroneous because respondent has a duty under that statutory provision to use ordinary care to provide inmates such as Carter with adequate clothing.”
State v. Gaul, 691 N.E.2d 760 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 7דProcedural History On June 22, 1995, Gaul was indicted on one count of dereliction of duty, R.C. 2921.44(E), a second degree misdemeanor.”
State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Exam'r's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8714 (Ohio 2017). “03(A)(1), which requires peace officers to "arrest and detain, until a warrant can be obtained, a person found violating * * * a law of this state," and (3) R.C. 2921.44(A)(2), which makes it a misdemeanor for an officer to negligently "[f]ail to prevent or halt the commission…”
Wilkinson v. Dayton, 2024 Ohio 180 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12ד{¶ 29} In the first amended complaint, Wilkerson asserted that Moore and Santos were guilty of the crime of dereliction of duty as proscribed by R.C. 2921.44. Specifically, that complaint cited R.”
Wilkinson v. Dayton, 2024 Ohio 180 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “{¶ 29} In the first amended complaint, Wilkerson asserted that Moore and Santos were guilty of the crime of dereliction of duty as proscribed by R.C. 2921.44. Specifically, that complaint cited R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2921.44(A)(2) — 13 cases
Argabrite v. Neer, 2016 Ohio 8374 (Ohio 2016). “03(A)(1), it also subjects that officer to potential criminal liability for negligently failing to do so, R.C. 2921.44(A)(2). {¶ 16} An officer’s role in our society creates a unique lens through which to view his or her actions and through which to determine whether those…”
State ex rel. Clay v. Cuyahoga Cty. Med. Exam'r's Off. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8714 (Ohio 2017). “03(A)(1), which requires peace officers to "arrest and detain, until a warrant can be obtained, a person found violating * * * a law of this state," and (3) R.C. 2921.44(A)(2), which makes it a misdemeanor for an officer to negligently "[f]ail to prevent or halt the commission…”
Johari v. City of Columbus Police Dep't, 186 F. Supp. 2d 821 (S.D. Ohio 2002). “Finally, Plaintiffs claim of dereliction of duty under O.R.C. § 2921.44 also fails. Section 2921.”
Baker v. State, 502 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “” Appellant contends, as he did below, that R.C. 2921.44(C) establishes ap-pellees’ duty of care and that the decision of Reynolds v.”
Frash v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2016 Ohio 360 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Although R.C. 2921.44 is a criminal statute, not a stand-alone civil cause of action, we recognize that "[w]here a legislative enactment imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection of others, and [a person's] neglect to perform that duty proximately results in…”
Peart v. Seneca Cnty., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (N.D. Ohio 2011). “1 He also asserts state law claims for negligence and violation of O.R.C. § 2921.44. Seneca County, its former Sheriff, Thomas Steyer, and its Commissioners, Benjamin Nutter, David Sauber, Sr.”
State ex rel. Carter v. Schotten, 637 N.E.2d 306 (Ohio 1994). “94-670, dismissal of Carter’s state claim, based on a violation of R.C. 2921.44(C)(2), was erroneous because respondent has a duty under that statutory provision to use ordinary care to provide inmates such as Carter with adequate clothing.”
Williams v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 587 N.E.2d 870 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “The trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant in failing to find that Ohio Revised Code, Section 2921.44(C)(3) and (5), creates a safe controlled environment in which the appellant is not permitted either expressly or by implication to assume the risk of another inmate…”
Baker v. State, 502 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “” Appellant contends, as he did below, that R.C. 2921.44(C) establishes ap-pellees’ duty of care and that the decision of Reynolds v.”
Frash v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2016 Ohio 360 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016). “Although R.C. 2921.44 is a criminal statute, not a stand-alone civil cause of action, we recognize that "[w]here a legislative enactment imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection of others, and [a person's] neglect to perform that duty proximately results in…”
Williams v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 587 N.E.2d 870 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “The trial court erred to the prejudice of the appellant in failing to find that Ohio Revised Code, Section 2921.44(C)(3) and (5), creates a safe controlled environment in which the appellant is not permitted either expressly or by implication to assume the risk of another inmate…”
Baker v. State, 502 N.E.2d 261 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986). “” Appellant contends, as he did below, that R.C. 2921.44(C) establishes ap-pellees’ duty of care and that the decision of Reynolds v.”
State v. Gaul, 691 N.E.2d 760 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “Procedural History On June 22, 1995, Gaul was indicted on one count of dereliction of duty, R.C. 2921.44(E), a second degree misdemeanor.”
Wilkinson v. Dayton, 2024 Ohio 180 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “{¶ 29} In the first amended complaint, Wilkerson asserted that Moore and Santos were guilty of the crime of dereliction of duty as proscribed by R.C. 2921.44. Specifically, that complaint cited R.”
State v. Doane, 7 Ohio App. Unrep. 503 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991).
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.