No board of education may delay the opening of its schools or close its schools for financial reasons. Upon the request of the director of education and workforce, the attorney general shall seek injunctive relief and any other relief required to enforce this prohibition in the court of common pleas of Franklin county. The court of common pleas of Franklin county has exclusive original jurisdiction over all such actions.
Under this section, "board of education" includes the financial planning and supervision commission of a school district under a fiscal emergency pursuant to Chapter 3316. of the Revised Code.
Last updated August 3, 2026 at 5:25 PM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 1992–2001 · leading case: DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997).
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 22דIf a school district cannot meet its current operating needs through a spending reserve loan, it is then required to seek approval of a loan under R.C. 3313.483. These loans are obtained from commercial lenders.”
DeRolph v. State, 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 3ד301, which granted borrowing authority to school districts, and R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
DeRolph v. State, 754 N.E.2d 1184 (Ohio 2001). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; “(b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 (1997). · cites it 23ד301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; (b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
Reed v. Rhodes, 934 F. Supp. 1459 (N.D. Ohio 1996). “Receivership, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 3313.483 et seq., is an option reserved to the discretion of the State Board of Education upon certification by the State Auditor.”
Russell v. Gallia Cnty. Local Sch. Bd., 610 N.E.2d 1130 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1992). “See R.C. 3313.483. Thus, in order to obtain the loan in 1991, appellant had to submit a plan cutting expenses by slightly over $900,000.”
DeRolph v. State, 89 Ohio St. 3d 1 (2000). · cites it 3ד301, which granted borrowing authority to school districts, and R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
DeRolph v. State, 93 Ohio St. 3d 309 (2001). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; “(b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
Reed v. Rhodes, 934 F. Supp. 1485 (N.D. Ohio 1996). “§ 455 (a), that receivership, pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 3313.483 et seq., is an option reserved to the discretion of the State Board of Education upon certification by the State Auditor.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.483(A): 2 cases
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). “If a school district cannot meet its current operating needs through a spending reserve loan, it is then required to seek approval of a loan under R.C. 3313.483. These loans are obtained from commercial lenders.”
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 (1997). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; (b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.483(B): 4 cases
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). “If a school district cannot meet its current operating needs through a spending reserve loan, it is then required to seek approval of a loan under R.C. 3313.483. These loans are obtained from commercial lenders.”
DeRolph v. State, 728 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 2000). “301, which granted borrowing authority to school districts, and R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 (1997). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; (b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
DeRolph v. State, 89 Ohio St. 3d 1 (2000). “301, which granted borrowing authority to school districts, and R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.483(D): 2 cases
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). “If a school district cannot meet its current operating needs through a spending reserve loan, it is then required to seek approval of a loan under R.C. 3313.483. These loans are obtained from commercial lenders.”
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 (1997). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; (b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.483(E): 2 cases
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). “If a school district cannot meet its current operating needs through a spending reserve loan, it is then required to seek approval of a loan under R.C. 3313.483. These loans are obtained from commercial lenders.”
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 (1997). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; (b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.483(E)(1): 2 cases
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). “If a school district cannot meet its current operating needs through a spending reserve loan, it is then required to seek approval of a loan under R.C. 3313.483. These loans are obtained from commercial lenders.”
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 (1997). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; (b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.483(E)(2): 2 cases
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). “If a school district cannot meet its current operating needs through a spending reserve loan, it is then required to seek approval of a loan under R.C. 3313.483. These loans are obtained from commercial lenders.”
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 (1997). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; (b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 3313.483(E)(3): 2 cases
DeRolph v. State, 677 N.E.2d 733 (Ohio 1997). “If a school district cannot meet its current operating needs through a spending reserve loan, it is then required to seek approval of a loan under R.C. 3313.483. These loans are obtained from commercial lenders.”
DeRolph v. State, 78 Ohio St. 3d 193 (1997). “301, granting borrowing authority to school districts; (b) R.C. 3313.483, 3313.487, 3313.488, 3313.489, and 3313.”
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.