Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 733.72 (2026)

Charges against municipal officers filed with probate judge - proceedings

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Effective:

November 1, 1977

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 219 - 112th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

When a complaint under oath is filed with the probate judge of the county in which a municipal corporation or the larger part thereof is situated, by any elector of the municipal corporation, signed and approved by four other electors thereof, the judge shall forthwith issue a citation to any person charged in the complaint for his appearance before the judge within ten days from the filing thereof, and shall also furnish the accused and the village solicitor or city director of law with a copy thereof. The complaint shall charge any of the following:

(A) That a member of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation has received, directly or indirectly, compensation for his services as a member thereof, as a committeeman, or otherwise, contrary to law;

(B) That a member of the legislative authority or an officer of the municipal corporation is or has been interested, directly or indirectly, in the profits of a contract, job, work, or service, or is or has been acting as a commissioner, architect, superintendent, or engineer in work undertaken or prosecuted by the municipal corporation, contrary to law;

(C) That a member of the legislative authority or an officer of the municipal corporation has been guilty of misfeasance or malfeasance in office.

Before acting upon such complaint, the judge shall require the party complaining to furnish sufficient security for costs.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Stokes v. Prob. Court of Cuyahoga Cnty., 246 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Stokes v. Prob. Court of Cuyahoga Cnty., 246 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 36× “In accordance with the provisions of Sections 733.72 to 733.77, inclusive, Eevised Code, a complaint, bearing the signatures of five electors of the city of Cleveland, was filed in the Probate Court of Cuyahoga County.”

State ex rel. Kendzia v. Carney, 252 N.E.2d 639 (Ohio 1969). · cites it 9× “78, as well as Sections 733.72 to 733.77, inclusive, Revised Code, prevents me from concluding that the board’s position constituted either a “flagrant misinterpretation” or a “clear disregard” of the statutory sanctions for what may be characterized, for the purpose of…”

Vill. of Mantua Ex Rel. Webb v. Clavner, 624 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 7× “Complainant-appellant, Jack Webb, filed a complaint, ex relatione, pursuant to R.C. 733.72, requesting that certain officials of the village of Mantua, including the mayor, clerk-treasurer, village administrator and members of council, be removed from office for alleged…”

Slodov v. Eagle Ridge Subdivision Prop. Owner's Assn., Inc., 2023 Ohio 3688 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “2d 594 (1970) involved a public office holder’s removal from office for misconduct under R.C. 733.72. Id. The court observed in dicta “[o]bviously, if the officer is not reelected, he is no longer an officer and the question of his removal is moot.”

Mender v. Chauncey, 2015 Ohio 4105 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “The Village filed a motion in limine concerning the removal petitions on the ground that it was not an act by the Village, but was filed pursuant to R.C. 733.72, which allows an elector to be joined by four other electors to file a removal petition against a mayor.”

Pengov v. White, 766 N.E.2d 228 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Applying this rule of strict construction, the court held that the phrase “in office” in the removal statute applicable to municipal officers limited the availability of the removal remedy to the term in which the alleged misconduct occurred: *406 “In the absence of clear…”

Avon Lake ex rel. Phillips v. Spaetzel, 2026 Ohio 1104 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 16× “Appellants filed their complaint pursuant to R.C. 733.72, which sets forth a procedure by which a municipal mayor can be removed from office for misfeasance or malfeasance.”

Belle v. Carr, 862 N.E.2d 847 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 6× “{¶ 21} R.C. 733.72 provides the means by which any elector may file a complaint to remove an elected official from office for misfeasance or malfeasance: {¶ 22} “R.”

Layshock v. Phillips, 639 N.E.2d 510 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “Appellees’ complaint for removal of appellant from office had been filed pursuant to R.C. 733.72 et seq., and alleged that appellant was guilty of misfeasance and malfeasance.”

Burks v. Perk, 339 F. Supp. 1194 (N.D. Ohio 1972). · cites it 2× “In addition, the important question — whether judicial review of the defendant’s ultimate order is permitted — should also be considered by the state courts, first, because the City Charter provision which declares such judgments to be final may conflict with Ohio Revised Code,…”

State ex rel. Yost v. Costine, 2026 Ohio 1099 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “See generally R.C. 733.72 to 733.78 (the "Misconduct Statutes").”

State ex rel. Yost v. Costine, 2026 Ohio 1154 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “Applicable Law Municipal Officer Misconduct Statutes and Probate Courts {¶ 7} Ohio law provides for the removal of elected municipal officials for misconduct while in office.”

Show all 13 citing cases →

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.