Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 737.12 (2026)

Suspension of police and fire personnel

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Effective:

October 16, 1996

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 566 - 121st General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

Except as provided in section 737.052 of the Revised Code, the chief of police and the chief of the fire department have the exclusive right to suspend any of the deputies, officers, or employees in their respective departments and under their management and control, for incompetence, gross neglect of duty, gross immorality, habitual drunkenness, failure to obey orders given them by the proper authority, or for any other reasonable and just cause.

If an employee is suspended under this section, the chief of police or the chief of the fire department, as the case may be, shall forthwith certify that fact in writing, together with the cause for the suspension, to the director of public safety, who, within five days from the receipt of that certification, shall proceed to inquire into the cause of the suspension and render judgment on it. If the charge is sustained, the judgment may be for the person's suspension, reduction in rank, or dismissal from the department. The judgment shall be final except as otherwise provided by law.

The director, in any investigation of charges against a member of the police or fire department, shall have the same powers to administer oaths and to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers that are conferred upon the mayor.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1945–2021 · leading case: Peters v. City of Jackson, 653 N.E.2d 1238 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Peters v. City of Jackson, 653 N.E.2d 1238 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 25× “” Second Assignment of Error: “The court of common pleas erred by failing to determine, as a matter of law, that the appellees violated R.C. 737.12 in terminating the appellant’s employment.”

State v. Mole (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5124 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 2× “5 See R.C. 737.12 (allowing suspension or dismissal of police officers for any reasonable cause, including “gross immorality”); Jones v.”

Pesek v. City of Brunswick, 794 F. Supp. 768 (N.D. Ohio 1992). · cites it 8× “The Ohio Revised Code establishes that the chief of police and the chief of the fire department for municipalities, respectively, possess the “exclusive right” to suspend employees under their control, see O.R.C. § 737.12. Thus, seemingly, Combs and Crane have final…”

City of Akron v. Williams, 673 N.E.2d 221 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 19× “The city argues that the common pleas court incorrectly reversed the commission’s decision on the ground that the city had violated R.C. 737.12, because that statute was superseded by the Akron City Charter.”

Wright v. City of Canton, Ohio, 138 F. Supp. 2d 955 (N.D. Ohio 2001). “Under Ohio Revised Code § 737.12, the chief of police is the final policymaker with regard to investigations that do not result in disciplinary action.”

Brice v. City of Oregon, 675 N.E.2d 545 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 13× “The trial court erred when it held that appellee be reinstated as a firefighter since no ‘removal’ pursuant to O.R.C. 737.12 took place. *9 “II. The trial court erred when it held that the city of Oregon wrongfully required appellee to resign his position as firefighter.”

Spain v. City of Mansfield, 915 F. Supp. 919 (N.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 2× “On March 23, 1992, a hearing was held in accordance with Section 737.12 of the Ohio Revised Code by the Service Safety Director ■with respect to what disciplinary action, if any, would be taken.”

Beyer v. Donaldson, 384 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “Section 737.12 provides inter alia that: “The chief of police and the chief of the fire department shall have exclusive right to suspend any of the deputies, officers, or employees in their respective departments and under their management and control, for incompetence, gross…”

Williams v. City of Akron, 753 N.E.2d 249 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). “Williams appealed to the Akron Civil Service Commission, which held a hearing on December 15,1994. The commission also affirmed the dismissal, and Williams appealed to the court of common pleas.”

Martin v. City of Bellefontaine, 412 N.E.2d 421 (Ohio Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “First Assignment of Error: “The Bellefontaine Civil Ser *172 vice Commission erred in affirming the suspension since it was not in compliance with either Section 737.12 or 124.34 of the Ohio Revised Code.”

Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. Vill. of Lordstown, 691 N.E.2d 1069 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “In both cases, the employers expressly reserved the right to suspend and discharge employees for just cause. However, there are two critical differences.”

Zimmerman v. City of Cleveland, 130 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio Ct. App. 1955). · cites it 4× “'” This is also in accord with the statutes of the state, as defined by the provisions of Section 737.12, Revised Code (Sections 4379 and 4380, General Code), the applicable part thereof being as follows: “The chief of police * * * shall have exclusive right to suspend * * *…”

Show all 17 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.