On complaint, in writing, signed by one or more taxpayers, containing distinct charges and specifications of wanton and willful neglect of duty or gross misconduct in office by the prosecuting attorney, supported by affidavit and filed in the court of common pleas, the court shall assign the complaint for hearing and shall cause reasonable notice of the hearing to be given to the prosecuting attorney of the time fixed by the court for the hearing. At the time so fixed, or to which the court adjourns the hearing, the court shall hear the evidence adduced by the complainants and the prosecuting attorney. The court may consider motions for judgment on the pleadings made pursuant to Civil Rule 12, motions to dismiss made pursuant to Civil Rule 41, and motions for summary judgment made pursuant to Civil Rule 56 that are filed before the hearing. If it appears that the prosecuting attorney has willfully and wantonly neglected to perform the prosecuting attorney's duties, or has been guilty of gross misconduct in office, the court shall remove the prosecuting attorney from office and declare the office vacant. Otherwise the complaint shall be dismissed, and the court shall render judgment against the losing party for costs.
If a complaint to remove a prosecuting attorney is dismissed because the complainant or complainants failed to file an affidavit in support of the complaint, the dismissal shall be without prejudice.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Brown v. Schmidt, 2016-Ohio-2864.
Brown v. Schmidt, 2016-Ohio-2864. · cites it 12ד{¶2} Brown asserts in his second assignment of error that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint on the basis that Brown failed to allege and establish that he is a taxpayer, thus indicating that he lacked standing to file the complaint.”
Woodman v. Tubbs Jones, 660 N.E.2d 520 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1995). · cites it 5דTherefore, appellant requested that Stephanie Tubbs Jones be removed from the office of prosecutor, pursuant to R.C. 309.05. After the case was set for a hearing, appellee moved to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.”
Pengov v. White, 766 N.E.2d 228 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2001). · cites it 4דI Pengov filed his first complaint in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas on September 20, 1999, alleging that the Prosecutor should be removed from office pursuant to R.C. 309.05. Pengov claimed the Prosecutor should be removed for failing to prosecute twenty-two-year-old…”
Manning v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 2025-Ohio-4751. · cites it 8דDisregard of Attorney Misconduct section 309.05 13. Disregard of landlord criminal acts [and] activities [and] multiple tenants rights violations 14.”
State ex rel. Stokes v. Prob. Court of Cuyahoga Cnty., 246 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1969). · cites it 4ד06, pertaining to removal of a county engineer, and Section 309.05, pertaining to removal of a prosecuting attorney, both procedures involving the bringing of a civil action in the Common Pleas Court by one person, in the first instance by “any person,” in the second by “one or…”
Terrell v. White, 663 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1995). · cites it 3דTerrell alleged that White should be removed from office for misconduct in violation of R.C. 309.05. The Medina County Court of Common Pleas found that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed Terrell’s claim.”
State v. Bishop, 2024-Ohio-2158. · cites it 2ד16, R.C. 309.05, and Crim.R. 12. The record reveals Appellant’s claims are barred by principles of res judicata.”
State ex rel. Chapman v. Byrd, 2022-Ohio-469. · cites it 2דIn his request to the clerk, Chapman mentioned that his intention is to use the records to file a R.C. 309.05 complaint to remove the prosecutor.”
Ohio State Bar Assn. v. Beem (Slip Opinion), 2021-Ohio-2821, 185 N.E.3d 31. “She reminded McCoy to address the trial judge’s potential bias toward his key witnesses and identified at least one example of that alleged bias.”
Stauffer v. Smith, 2015-Ohio-4240. “2001) (Stokes prohibited the removal of a prosecutor during a term subsequent to when misconduct occurred, pursuant to R.C. 309.05); 1994 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No 94-065, at 3 (removal of a member of the county Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, pursuant to…”
State v. McCoy, 2015-Ohio-5195. “OSWALT DURING A §309.05 DEPOSITION HEARING IN 2014 WHERE HE DEPOSED BOTH MARCIA J.”
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.