If the prosecuting attorney fails, upon the written request of a taxpayer of the county, to make the application or institute the civil action contemplated in section 309.12 of the Revised Code, the taxpayer may make such application or institute such civil action in the name of the state, or, in any case wherein the prosecuting attorney is authorized to make such application, such taxpayer may bring any suit or institute any such proceedings against any county officer or person who holds or has held a county office, for misconduct in office or neglect of his duty, to recover money illegally drawn or illegally withheld from the county treasury, and to recover damages resulting from the execution of such illegal contract.
If such prosecuting attorney fails upon the written request of a taxpayer of the county, to bring such suit or institute such proceedings, or if for any reason the proseucting attorney cannot bring such action, or if he has received and unlawfully withheld moneys belonging to the county, or has received or drawn public moneys out of the county treasury which he is not lawfully entitled to demand and receive, a taxpayer, upon securing the costs, may bring such suit or institute such proceedings, in the name of the state. Such action shall be for the benefit of the county, as if brought by the prosecuting attorney.
If the court hearing such case is satisfied that such taxpayer is entitled to the relief prayed for in his petition, and judgment is ordered in his favor, he shall be allowed his costs, including a reasonable compensation to his attorney.
City of Cincinnati Ex Rel. Ritter v. Cincinnati Reds, L.L.C., 782 N.E.2d 1225 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8ד’ ” 9 At that point, Ritter should have filed a taxpayer action against Hamilton County under R.C. 309.13. That would have required Ritter to make a written request that the county prosecutor apply to a trial court to protect public funds under R.”
S. Christian Leadership Conf. v. Combined Health Dist., 946 N.E.2d 282 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 13דThe taxpayers alleged against CHD civil conspiracy, breach of fiduciary duty, and misuse of public funds under R.C. 309.13, and against the Montgomery County Health Commissioner and the members of the Montgomery County Board of Health, breach of fiduciary duty as well as misuse…”
State ex rel. Perkins v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2020 Ohio 3913 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 12דPerkins failed to secure the costs for a statutory taxpayer action pursuant to R.C. 309.13. {¶3} Prior to the initial pretrial, the Board and Rumpke filed a joint motion for judgment on the pleadings, raising four different bases for the dismissal of Mr.”
Leber v. Buckeye Union Ins., 708 N.E.2d 726 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 11דMarch 3, 1989, opinion of the Erie County Court of Appeals upon direct appeal from the September 14,1987, judgment: Buckeye’s Assignment of Error XIII provided: “The trial court erred in awarding plaintiffs their costs and attorney fees under R.C. 309.13.” This court stated: “In…”
State v. Yavorcik, 2018 Ohio 1824 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2ד{¶ 15} On August 7, 2006, OVM filed a taxpayer's suit against the county under R.C. 309.13, 4 the board of commissioners, Sciortino, Reardon, and several county officials including Gains in his capacity as prosecutor.”
U.S. Corr. Corp. v. Ohio Dep't of Indus. Relations, 652 N.E.2d 766 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 4דMonahan also contends that the trial court erred in dismissing his counterclaim against the board of commissioners, wherein he attempted to initiate an R.C. 309.13 taxpayer’s action to enjoin the county from honoring the terms of the lease agreement.”
State ex rel. Doran v. Preble Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2013 Ohio 3579 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4ד12 or R.C. 309.13; (2) laches does not apply to the claims of a local government against another local government for violation of the public's rights; (3) laches does not apply when the party asserting the defense has unclean hands; and (4) even if laches applied, the Board…”
State ex rel. Martens v. Findlay Mun. Court, 2024 Ohio 5667 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 2ד59, or in “the name of the state,” R.C. 309.13, if the government fails to pursue a lawsuit after a written request from the taxpayer.”
State ex rel. King v. Summit Cnty. Council, 789 N.E.2d 1108 (Ohio 2003). · cites it 2ד{¶ 17} On June 13, 2002, appellees filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus and an R.C. 309.13 taxpayers’ suit in the Court of Appeals for Summit County.”
Aarti Hosp., LLC v. City of Grove City, Ohio, 486 F. Supp. 2d 696 (S.D. Ohio 2007). · cites it 4דNotably, there must be a statutory conferral of standing, such as the Ohio Rev.Code § 309.13 provision enabling a taxpayer who has satisfied various threshold conditions to pursue an action that could have been brought by a prosecuting attorney.”
State ex rel. Varnau v. Wenninger, 2012 Ohio 224 (Ohio 2012). · cites it 2דThat statute provides for an award of attorney fees as part of costs if a prosecuting attorney failed to institute a civil action for the protection of public funds after a taxpayer made a written request that he do so and the taxpayer, upon securing the costs, brought such an…”
State Ex Rel. Teamsters Local Union No. 436 v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 2012 Ohio 1861 (Ohio 2012). “R.C. 309.13. In addition to the satisfaction of the foregoing formal requirement, the taxpayer must also demonstrate that the remedy sought will benefit the public in order to have standing.”
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.