Opinions > 2023 Opinions


Requested by: Muskingum County Prosecuting Attorney
Because R.C. 3335.37 specifically mandates that money obtained from a tax levy or from the general fund of the county be paid into the Ohio State University Extension fund, a county cannot directly distribute the funds to the Ohio State University Extension office in the county, and a board of county commissioners has no authority to charge the Ohio State University Extension rent or utilities for the county office space provided to it pursuant to R.C. 3335.36.


Requested by: Highland County Prosecuting Attorney
Neither landowners nor fence-builders can demand the removal of most trees situated within four feet of a partition fence pursuant to R.C. 971.33. The term “trees for use” in R.C. 971.33 refers to trees that are planted for a particular purpose, and whether a particular tree is “for use” is a question of fact for the courts.


Requested by: Butler County Prosecuting Attorney
No statute directly mandates or authorizes the recording of a memorandum of contract between a real-estate broker and homeowner in which the homeowner agrees that the broker will be the listing agent if the homeowner sells his home within the next forty years. Therefore, it is within the county recorder’s discretion to determine if the memorandum of contract is a type of instrument required or authorized by the Revised Code to be recorded and/or whether the submitted memorandum of contract is materially false or fraudulent. See R.C. 317.13(B).


Requested by: Hardin County Prosecuting Attorney
Compatibility: a person cannot simultaneously serve as a secret-service officer and either a township constable or a municipal-police officer with a special commission within the same county when the person lacks an ability to abstain. The warrantless-arrest authority of township constables is limited, and is not the same as their warrant-arrest authority. A township constable may execute an arrest warrant throughout the county in which the served township sits. Any arrest conducted by an individual serving as a secret-service officer and township constable must occur while the person is acting as a constable. A county prosecutor cannot provide that a township incurs no liability for any unlawful acts done by a person who serves as both, and the ultimate determination as to the prosecutor’s liability is left to the courts. Additionally, a board of county commissioners has no authority to use the general fund to pay for the liability insurance for a person who serves as both. The entity that assumes liability for any unlawful acts is the entity for which the person is working at the moment when the unlawful act occurs.