Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5501.22 (2026)

Actions against director

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

September 28, 1973

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 200 - 110th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

The director of transportation shall not be suable, either as a sole defendant or jointly with other defendants, in any court outside Franklin county except in actions brought by a railroad company under section 4957.30 of the Revised Code, or by a property owner to prevent the taking of property without due process of law, in which case suit may be brought in the county where such property is situated, or in any action otherwise specifically provided for in Chapters 5501., 5503., 5511., 5512., 5513., 5515., 5516., 5517., 5519., 5521., 5523., 5525., 5527., 5528., 5529., 5531., 5533., and 5535. of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Proctor v. Kardassilaris, 873 N.E.2d 872 (Ohio 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Proctor v. Kardassilaris, 873 N.E.2d 872 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 15× “Introduction {¶ 1} This appeal presents the issue of whether R.C. 5501.22, which provides that the Ohio director of transportation is not “suable” outside of Franklin County except in certain limited circumstances, applies to counterclaims filed in an ongoing appropriation…”

Dargart v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 871 N.E.2d 608 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “ODOT also maintained that the court was without jurisdiction because R.C. 5501.22 requires that all actions against ODOT be brought in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”

GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Twp., 731 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “Appellants also concede that under the mandates of R.C. 5501.22, the director of ODOT can be sued as a defendant only in Franklin County.”

State, Ex Rel. Lawrence Dev. Co. v. Weir, 463 N.E.2d 398 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “” Relator argues that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence *97 County cannot be res judicata since that court was without subject matter jurisdiction to render the judgment and it is therefore void, relying upon R.C. 5501.22: “The director of transportation…”

Wandling v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 604 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “] the Court Order was to the Public Authority.” See R.C. 1311.32. After a review of the foregoing, we find the trial court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to enter the March 20, 1991 judgment.”

State ex rel. Blank v. Beasley, 2009 Ohio 835 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 2× “The common pleas court dismissed the counterclaims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the judgments were affirmed by the court of 4 January Term, 2009 appeals.”

Bailey v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 863 N.E.2d 1078 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 9× “Specifically, appellants argue that pursuant to R.C. 5501.22, ODOT and its director may be sued only in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.”

Dudziak v. Cercone, 6 Ohio App. Unrep. 122 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “ODOT filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that R.C. 5501.22 vested exclusive jurisdiction over this action with the Franklin County court system.”

Algoma Grp., A Gen. P'ship v. Marchbanks, 2024 Ohio 2342 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “{¶ 5} Appellants obtained a stay of the Delaware County appropriation proceedings and filed a complaint against ODOT on November 22, 2021 in the Franklin County court of common pleas, asserting jurisdiction to sue ODOT pursuant to R.C. 5501.22. Appellants pursued declaratory…”

Taylor v. Kettering Med. Ctr., 2025 Ohio 1766 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025). “13 to circumvent the jurisdictional limitations on claims against the director of transportation in R.C. 5501.22.”). {¶ 31} The trial court erred by implicitly finding that R.”

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.