Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 5571.02 (2026)

Control and maintenance of township roads

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Effective:

June 10, 2004

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 299 - 125th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

The board of township trustees shall have control of the township roads of its township and, except for those township roads the board places on nonmaintained status pursuant to section 5571.20 of the Revised Code, shall keep them in good repair. The board of township trustees, with the approval of the board of county commissioners or the director of transportation, may maintain or repair a county road, or intercounty highway, or state highway within the limits of its township.

In the maintenance and repair of roads, the board of township trustees may proceed in any of the following methods:

(A) It may designate one of its number to have charge of the maintenance and repair of roads within the township.

(B) It may divide the township into three road districts, in which event each trustee shall have charge of the maintenance and repair of roads within one of those districts.

(C) It may appoint some competent person, not a member of the board of township trustees, to have charge of maintenance and repair of roads within the township, who shall be known as "township highway superintendent" and shall serve at the pleasure of the board.

The method to be followed in each township shall be determined by the board of township trustees by resolution entered on its records.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trs., 654 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trs., 654 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio 1995). “The court of appeals determined that because the Duncans failed to establish that the road in question was a township road, the trustees possessed none of the foregoing duties as to that road.”

Link v. FirstEnergy Corp. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5083 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2× “” R.C. 5571.02. “Control” must entail at least the discretion as to how to demand that a utility company move its pole to a safer location within a township’s easement.”

Royce v. Smith, 429 N.E.2d 134 (Ohio 1981). · cites it 2× “02, which requires that a board of township trustees keep its roads in ‘good repair’ does not create liability for failure to trim trees which obstruct the visibility of a stop sign along a township road, because the trimming of trees which might obscure signs is not an element…”

White v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 564 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 1990). “” R.C. 5571.02 also provides that “[t]he board of township trustees shall have control of the township roads of its township and shall keep them in good repair.”

Bell v. Horton, 669 N.E.2d 546 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). “In examining the statements regarding the destruction of township roads under the A & B-Abell analysis, we note that the public clearly has an interest in preventing the destruction of township roads.”

Wooten v. CSX R.R., 842 N.E.2d 603 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). “01(B) and (C); see, also, R.C. 5571.02 (requiring townships to keep township roads in good repair).”

Citizens Against Blasting on Our Miami v. Anderson Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2012 Ohio 6145 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). “See R.C. 5571.02, 5571.08 and 5571.09. Newtown argues that the BZA’s decision similarly impairs its statutory duty to maintain safe roadways, pointing to evidence that truck traffic will increase in the village due to the mine.”

State ex rel. Duncan v. Chippewa Twp. Trs., 1995 Ohio 272 (Ohio 1995). “The court of appeals determined that because the Duncans failed to establish that the road in question was a township road, the trustees possessed none of the foregoing duties as to that road.”

Clements v. Trs. of Monroe Twp., 689 N.E.2d 976 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “R.C. 5571.02 provides that “[t]he board of township trustees shall have control of the township roads of its township and shall keep them in good repair.”

Mezger v. Horton, 2013 Ohio 2964 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “{¶ 3} Mezger alleged in his complaint that (1) the Trustees had a statutory duty to keep the road free from obstructions according to R.C. 5571.02 and R.C 5579.08, (2) he was owed punitive damages because the Trustees had failed to investigate and eliminate a known safety…”

Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 110 Ohio App. 3d 527 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “The trustees argue that the proposed sign will distract drivers from the roadway and could obstruct the traffic signal at the Blong-Montgomery intersection, and thus have a negative impact on the safety of traffic on the township road. This situation is distinguishable from that…”

Litsinger v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trs., 2024 Ohio 781 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 5571.02(C) (“township trustees * * * may appoint some competent person * * * to have charge and maintenance and repair of roads within the township”).”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— Ohio Rev. Code § 5571.02(C) — 1 case

Litsinger v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Trs., 2024 Ohio 781 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024). “R.C. 5571.02(C) (“township trustees * * * may appoint some competent person * * * to have charge and maintenance and repair of roads within the township”).”

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.