Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 737.171 (2026)

Procedure for removal of village marshal

✓ 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 737.162 of the Revised Code, if the mayor of a village has reason to believe that a duly appointed marshal of the village has been guilty of incompetency, inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, or any other acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in the performance of the marshal's official duty, the mayor shall file with the legislative authority of the village written charges against that person setting forth in detail the reason for the charges and immediately shall serve a true copy of the charges upon the person against whom they are made.

Charges filed under this section shall be heard at the next regular meeting of the legislative authority occurring not less than five days after the date those charges have been served on the person against whom they are made. The person against whom those charges are filed may appear in person and by counsel at the hearing, examine all witnesses, and answer all charges against that person.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the legislative authority may dismiss the charges, suspend the accused from office for not more than sixty days, or remove the accused from office.

Action of the legislative authority removing or suspending the accused from office requires the affirmative vote of two-thirds of all members elected to it.

In the case of removal from office, the person so removed may appeal on questions of law and fact the decision of the legislative authority to the court of common pleas of the county in which the village is situated. The person shall take the appeal within ten days from the date of the finding of the legislative authority.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: Barga v. St. Paris Vill. Council, 2023 Ohio 1067 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Barga v. St. Paris Vill. Council, 2023 Ohio 1067 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 12× “22[,] DID NOT APPLY TO THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIRED UNDER R.C. 737.171 AND FAILING TO HOLD THAT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL VIOLATED THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT RENDERING ITS DECISION VOID AS A MATTER OF LAW.”

Haven v. Lodi, 2022 Ohio 3957 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “15 to R.C. 737.171, R.C. 737.19. R.C. 737.16 provides for the appointment of a police officer for a village and that the “officer[] shall continue in office until removed therefrom for the cause and in the manner 5 provided by [R.”

Barga v. St. Paris Vill. Council, 2024 Ohio 5293 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 63× “22—R.C. 737.171—When a public employee has a statutory right to a public hearing, the plain terms of R.”

Bowman v. S. Vienna, 2021 Ohio 4587 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 11× “For the reasons that follow, we hold that Bowman was still a probationary employee when she was terminated and therefore was not entitled to the due process protections offered in R.C. 737.171. The trial court’s judgment will be reversed.”

Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. Vill. of Lordstown, 691 N.E.2d 1069 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). “The text of the contract actually says the village must conduct removal proceedings under R.C. 737.171. But that section deals only with the removal of the marshal himself.”

Reed v. Vill. of Wilmot (N.D. Ohio 2019). · cites it 13× “Rather, it cited R.C. 737.171, “Suspension or removal of marshal,” as authority for Reed’s removal.”

Zeigler v. Vill. of Sycamore, 369 N.E.2d 1058 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “egislative authority of the village, who need *250 not be a resident of the village at the time of his appointment but shall become a resident thereof within six months after his appointment by the mayor and confirmation of the legislative authority unless such residence…”

Carroll v. Grafton, 2014 Ohio 4534 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “Carroll filed an action seeking declarations that the Grafton chief of police is not an at will employee; that the chief of police may only be terminated for cause, as provided by R.C. 737.171; that his termination was unlawful; and that he is entitled to reinstatement.”

Quigley v. Vill. of Blanchester, 242 N.E.2d 589 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “Appellant lost his appeal which was filed with the council on questions of law and fact as provided by Section 737.171 of the Bevised Code, and appeal was then perfected in the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County, Ohio.”

Lampela v. Put-In-Bay, 2019 Ohio 2476 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “Appellee previously brought seven charges against appellant pursuant to R.C. 737.171 arising from criminal charges against appellant for violations of R.”

Dalton-Webb v. Vill. of Wakeman (N.D. Ohio 2020). “17 is not entitled to the protection of R.C. 737.171 upon his dismissal.”) (internal quotation omitted).”

Hess v. Vill. of Bethel, Ohio (S.D. Ohio 2024). “§ 737.171. Ohio law granted Teague broad authority over the Village of Bethel police department, tasked him with enforcing the law, and insulated him from removal by the mayor.”

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.