Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01 (2026)

Age of majority

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

All persons of the age of eighteen years or more, who are under no legal disability, are capable of contracting and are of full age for all purposes.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 91 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Thomasson v. Thomasson (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2417 (Ohio 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomasson v. Thomasson (Slip Opinion), 2018 Ohio 2417 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 20× “Instead, R.C. 3109.01 provides Carol a 15 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO substantial right that is affected by the trial court’s order appointing a guardian ad litem in the divorce action.”
Carnes v. Kemp, 2004 Ohio 7107 (Ohio 2004). · cites it 4× “As stated by the able author of the well-reasoned and practical appellate court opinion, once a child reaches the age of majority, it is presumed that the child had received adequate support during minority; any action filed 1. Effective March 22, 2001, R.”
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990). · cites it 2× “Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.01 (1989). [10] The Ohio court reached this conclusion because "when the `proper purposes' exceptions set forth in R.”
Abbas v. Abbas, 715 N.E.2d 613 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “Appellant claimed therein that James never reached the age of majority as that term is defined in R.C. 3109.01 because he has always been disabled.”
State v. Johnson, 695 N.W.2d 165 (Neb. 2005). · cites it 2× “Supreme Court found no merit in the defendant's claim that the Ohio Supreme Court's resorting to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3109.01 (Anderson 1989) could not save the statute from his vagueness claim.”
Ayers v. Ayers, 2024 Ohio 1833 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 2× “The court of appeals disagreed, concluding that the trial court determined that David was voluntarily unemployed by considering several factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.01(C)(17)(a) to impute 4 January Term, 2024 potential income.”
Cramer v. Petrie, 637 N.E.2d 882 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 2× ““(B) Notwithstanding section 3109.01 of the Revised Code, the parental duty of support to children, including the duty of a parent to pay support pursuant to a child support order, shall continue beyond the age of majority as long as the child continuously attends on a full-time…”
In re Dissolution of Marriage of Lazor, 572 N.E.2d 66 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 3× “03 requires all parents, whether their marriage has been dissolved or not, to support their children so long as they are regularly attending high school, even if they are over the “age of majority” as defined by R.C. 3109.01. Appellee, primarily relying on Meyer v.”
Mazzuckelli v. Mazzuckelli, 666 N.E.2d 620 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “’ (R.C. 3109.01, construed.)” In Lazor, the court held that the noncustodial father’s obligation to pay child support pursuant to a separation agreement incorporated into a decree of dissolution terminated on the child’s eighteenth birthday even though the child was attending an…”
Swanson v. Swanson, 671 N.E.2d 1333 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “” R.C. 3109.01 provides that the age of majority in Ohio is eighteen years of age.”
Verplatse v. Verplatse, 477 N.E.2d 648 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “If he is unable to do so, the wife must assist him so far as she is able.”
In re Palcisco, 2012 Ohio 6134 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “01, which defines persons as “of full age” if they have reached the age of eighteen and are “under no legal disability,” “reflects the principle that mentally or physically disabled children should be excepted from a strictly age-based emancipation rule.”
Show all 91 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(B)(19) — 1 case
Littleton v. Littleton, 2019 Ohio 2309 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(C)(17) — 1 case
Ayers v. Ayers, 2025 Ohio 1848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(C)(17)(1) — 1 case
Ayers v. Ayers, 2025 Ohio 1848 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(C)(17)(a) — 3 cases
Ayers v. Ayers, 2024 Ohio 1833 (Ohio 2024). “The court of appeals disagreed, concluding that the trial court determined that David was voluntarily unemployed by considering several factors enumerated in R.C. 3109.01(C)(17)(a) to impute 4 January Term, 2024 potential income.”
Ayers v. Ayers, 2022 Ohio 403 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
Ayers v. Ayers, 2024 Ohio 1833 (Ohio 2024).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(E)(1)(a) — 1 case
White v. White, 2014 Ohio 1288 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(F)(1)(a) — 1 case
Fisher v. Hasenjager, 859 N.E.2d 1022 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(F)(1)(c) — 1 case
Lee v. Whitney, 2020 Ohio 978 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(F)(1)(d) — 1 case
Lee v. Whitney, 2020 Ohio 978 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3109.01(F)(1)(j) — 1 case
Lee v. Whitney, 2020 Ohio 978 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
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.