Any utility to which the consumers' counsel makes an inquiry on behalf of a residential customer concerning that customer's billing, or the availability, unavailability, or quality of that customer's service shall respond to the consumers' counsel on the merits of that inquiry within a reasonable time. If a definitive response cannot be made within three weeks of the making of the inquiry, the utility initially shall send an acknowledgement of receipt of the inquiry to the consumers' counsel and indicate the position of the utility concerning the nature of any investigation of the facts that it considers necessary to an ultimate response, and then, when it becomes possible to make a definitive response, shall respond to the consumers' counsel on the merits of the inquiry.
The failure of a utility to comply with this section is admissible evidence in a complaint proceeding under section 4905.26 of the Revised Code, upon the motion of the consumers' counsel, regardless of whether further evidence concerning the subject of the inquiry is offered.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1990–2025 · leading case: State v. Mayl, 833 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio 2005).
State v. Mayl, 833 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio 2005). “But the court of appeals reversed and held that the testing *208 requirements of R.C. 4911.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05 apply to aggravated vehicular homicides.”
State v. Saunders, 2017 Ohio 7348 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “As a result, Saunders was charged with violations of R.C. 4911.19(A)(1)(a) and 4511.02. Morrow County, Case No.”
State v. Young, 624 N.E.2d 314 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “There the Ohio Supreme Court held that a motion to suppress is the proper procedure for challenging breathalyzer test results in R.C. 4911.19(A)(3) prosecutions. Accord State v.”
State v. Mishler, 2024 Ohio 1085 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PERMITTING THE STATE OF OHIO TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF THE FIELD SOBRIETY TESTS WHERE THE STATE OF OHIO FAILED TO ESTABLISH SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE PURSUANT TO R.C. 4911.19. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV TRIAL COUNSEL’S PERFORMANCE WAS…”
State v. Webb, 2013 Ohio 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Moreover, appellee notes, R.C. 4911.19(D)(1)(b) specifically affords a trial judge the discretion to admit or exclude evidence related to the concentration of alcohol in a defendant’s breath1.”
State v. Maynard, 2025 Ohio 5379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2דR.C. 4911.19(D)(1)(b) requires that law- enforcement officers rely on the services of trained medical or scientific personnel to conduct any blood draws in OVI cases, and Maynard’s uncooperativeness with the phlebotomist enlisted by the trooper slowed down that person’s ability…”
State v. Mets, 2023 Ohio 710 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2דSTATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} On November 27, 2021, Appellant was charged with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, in violation of R.C. §4911.19(A)(1)(a). {¶3} On December 10, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress evidence as the State failed to…”
State v. Taylor, 2025 Ohio 4645 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2ד{¶11} R.C. 4911.19(A)(1) provides that, "No person shall operate any vehicle … within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply: (a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.”
State v. Maynard, 2025 Ohio 5379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “R.C. 4911.19(D)(1)(b) requires that law- enforcement officers rely on the services of trained medical or scientific personnel to conduct any blood draws in OVI cases, and Maynard’s uncooperativeness with the phlebotomist enlisted by the trooper slowed down that person’s ability…”
State v. Ware, 1 Ohio App. Unrep. 162 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “Thus, a marked distinction exists between admissible evidence in R.C. 4911.19(A) (2) through (A)(4) and admissible under R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4911.19(A) — 1 case
State v. Ware, 1 Ohio App. Unrep. 162 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). “Thus, a marked distinction exists between admissible evidence in R.C. 4911.19(A) (2) through (A)(4) and admissible under R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4911.19(A)(1) — 1 case
State v. Taylor, 2025 Ohio 4645 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “{¶11} R.C. 4911.19(A)(1) provides that, "No person shall operate any vehicle … within this state, if, at the time of the operation, any of the following apply: (a) The person is under the influence of alcohol, a drug of abuse, or a combination of them.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4911.19(A)(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Saunders, 2017 Ohio 7348 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “As a result, Saunders was charged with violations of R.C. 4911.19(A)(1)(a) and 4511.02. Morrow County, Case No.”
State v. Mets, 2023 Ohio 710 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE {¶2} On November 27, 2021, Appellant was charged with Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs, in violation of R.C. §4911.19(A)(1)(a). {¶3} On December 10, 2021, Appellant filed a Motion to Suppress evidence as the State failed to…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4911.19(A)(3) — 1 case
State v. Young, 624 N.E.2d 314 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). “There the Ohio Supreme Court held that a motion to suppress is the proper procedure for challenging breathalyzer test results in R.C. 4911.19(A)(3) prosecutions. Accord State v.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4911.19(D)(1) — 1 case
State v. Mayl, 833 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio 2005). “But the court of appeals reversed and held that the testing *208 requirements of R.C. 4911.19(D)(1) and Ohio Adm.Code 3701-53-05 apply to aggravated vehicular homicides.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 4911.19(D)(1)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Webb, 2013 Ohio 541 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “Moreover, appellee notes, R.C. 4911.19(D)(1)(b) specifically affords a trial judge the discretion to admit or exclude evidence related to the concentration of alcohol in a defendant’s breath1.”
State v. Maynard, 2025 Ohio 5379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “R.C. 4911.19(D)(1)(b) requires that law- enforcement officers rely on the services of trained medical or scientific personnel to conduct any blood draws in OVI cases, and Maynard’s uncooperativeness with the phlebotomist enlisted by the trooper slowed down that person’s ability…”
State v. Maynard, 2025 Ohio 5379 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “R.C. 4911.19(D)(1)(b) requires that law- enforcement officers rely on the services of trained medical or scientific personnel to conduct any blood draws in OVI cases, and Maynard’s uncooperativeness with the phlebotomist enlisted by the trooper slowed down that person’s ability…”
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.