Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 709
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 709.48 (2026)

No petitions for annexation after merger defeated

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
July 2, 2010
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 48 - 128th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

On and after the date on which a petition is filed with the board of elections under section 709.45 of the Revised Code for the election of a merger commission for the merger of one or more municipal corporations and the unincorporated territory of a township, no petition for the annexation of any part of the unincorporated territory of the township shall be filed with a board of county commissioners under section 709.03 or 709.15 of the Revised Code, until one of the following occurs:

(A) The question of forming a merger commission is defeated at the election provided for under section 709.45 of the Revised Code by a majority of the electors of any one of the municipal corporations or the unincorporated territory of the township in which the election is held.

(B) The merger commission elected pursuant to section 709.45 of the Revised Code fails to reach agreement on merger conditions by the ninetieth day preceding the next general election occurring after the election of the members of the commission or, if the time for the commission's existence is extended under division (D) of section 709.462 of the Revised Code, by the date that extension ceases, whichever is later.

(C) The merger conditions agreed upon by the merger commission are defeated by a majority of the electors of any one of the municipal corporations or the unincorporated territory of the township in which the election on the conditions is held.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1983–1998 · leading case: State ex rel. Smith v. Frost, 656 N.E.2d 673 (Ohio 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Smith v. Frost, 656 N.E.2d 673 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 7× “Respondents and the village rely on R.C. 709.48 and Davis v. Northampton Twp.”
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 693 N.E.2d 219 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 3× “However, R.C. 709.48 precludes filing an annexation petition “on and after the date on which a [merger] petition is filed” until the merger petition is resolved.”
State ex rel. City of Toledo v. Bd. of Commissioners, 513 N.E.2d 769 (Ohio 1987). · cites it 30× “The board of commissioners, Maumee, and Monclova Township, however, argue that the board of commissioners had a clear legal duty to refuse to accept for filing Toledo’s annexation petition because of the pending Maumee-Monclova Township merger petitions and the provisions of…”
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 81 Ohio St. 3d 608 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 3× “However, R.C. 709.48 precludes filing an annexation petition “on and after the date on which a [merger] petition is filed” until the merger petition is resolved.”
Ambrose v. Cole, 469 N.E.2d 906 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1983). · cites it 5× “R.C. 709.48 provides: “On and after the date on which a petition is filed with the board of elections * * * for the election of a merger commission for the merger of a municipal corporation and the unincorporated territory of a township, no 'petition for the annexation of any…”
State ex rel. Smith v. Frost, 74 Ohio St. 3d 107 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 7× “12608, unreported, in support of their contention that Judge Frost did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to enjoin the commissioners from proceeding on the annexation petitions because of the merger petition.”
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.