Go Syfert

Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 733.73 (2026)

Appearance of counsel - jury

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Effective:

May 22, 2012

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 268 - 129th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

On the day fixed by the probate judge for the return of the citation issued pursuant to section 733.72 of the Revised Code, the village solicitor or city director of law shall appear on behalf of the complainant to conduct the prosecution, and the accused may also appear by counsel. A time shall be set for hearing the case, which shall be not more than ten days after such return. If a jury is demanded by either party, the probate judge shall direct the summoning of twelve jurors in the manner provided by Chapter 2313. of the Revised Code. In a municipal corporation having no village solicitor or city director of law, or in case the village solicitor or city director of law is accused of any misfeasance or malfeasance in office, the prosecuting attorney shall appear on behalf of the complainant to conduct the prosecution.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Vill. of Mantua Ex Rel. Webb v. Clavner, 624 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vill. of Mantua Ex Rel. Webb v. Clavner, 624 N.E.2d 317 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 6× “Pursuant to R.C. 733.73, the court appointed the Portage County Prosecuting Attorney to represent complainant-appellant, after the village solicitor asked to withdraw due to a legal conflict of interest with complainant-appellant.”

State ex rel. Kendzia v. Carney, 252 N.E.2d 639 (Ohio 1969). · cites it 2× “72); may have counsel and demand a jury (Section 733.73); may challenge jurors, peremptorily and for good cause (Section 733.”

State Ex Rel. Stokes v. Prob. Court of Cuyahoga Cnty., 246 N.E.2d 607 (Ohio Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 4× “The wording of the statutes in their present form is, in most respects, identical to that of the original bill— so much so, in fact, that Section 733.73, as enacted in 1953, erroneously contained the word, “complaint,” where “complainant” was intended, even though the same error…”

State ex rel. Yost v. Costine, 2026 Ohio 1099 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “If the Probate Court determined the Law Director was unable to proceed, the Clinton Prosecutor also requested the appointment of a special prosecutor "to act on behalf of the State in this matter, consistent with R.C. 733.73." The Law Director did not object to Kidd's motion,…”

State ex rel. Yost v. Costine, 2026 Ohio 1154 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 2× “If the Probate Court determined the Law Director was unable to proceed, the Clinton Prosecutor also requested the appointment of a special prosecutor "to act on behalf of the State in this matter, consistent with R.C. 733.73." The Law Director did not object to Kidd's motion,…”

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.