Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 102.01

Section 102.01(C)(1) is a list of entities considered public agencies for purposes of Ohio ethics laws and, standing alone, does not determine whether an entity is a political subdivision or an arm of the State for Eleventh Amendment purposes.

Sherman v. Public Employees Retirement System · filed 2023-09-28(C)(1)

The Court views Ohio Revised Code § 102.01(C)(1) as a mere list of entities considered “public agencies” for purposes of Ohio ethics laws and nothing more.

Section 102.01(C) defines a public agency to include the five state retirement systems.

Police & Fire Retirees of Ohio, Inc. v. Police & Firemen's Disability & Pension Fund · filed 1985-07-17(C)

Furthermore, R.C. 102.01(C) specifically defines a “public agency” as including “the five state retirement systems.”

Section 102.01(B) excludes a person elected or appointed as a precinct, ward, or district committee member from the definition of public official or employee.

Reisig v. Camarato · filed 1996-06-03(B)

R.C. 102.01(B) states: ... “ ‘Public official or employee’ means any person who is elected or appointed to an office or is an employee of any public agency. ‘Public official or employee’ does not include a person elected or appointed to the office of precinct, ward, or district committee member under section 3517.03 of the Revised Code ... * * *.” (Emphasis added.) ... Since the charter does not define “public office” or “public employment” for purposes of Section 4 or contain language contrary to the statutory definitions, the trial court correctly recognized that the definitions are provided by the state statutes.

Section 102.01(B) defines a public official to include an employee of any public agency.

State v. Harris-Smith · filed 2018-08-03(B)

A definition of “public official” is found in R.C. 102.01(B), which provides that the term “means any person who is elected or appointed to an office or is an employee of any public agency.” ... Hackett, a public official to whom Harris-Smith knowingly made false statements about her dogs, performed an official function when she issued the dangerous dog registration certificates to Harris-Smith, as required by R.C. 955.22(I)(1).

Section 102.01's definition of public official includes a probation officer performing official duties.

In Re Slusser · filed 2000-11-15

For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that the appellant could not avail himself of the “exculpatory no” exception. Thus, we uphold the appellant’s conviction for knowingly making a false statement with the purpose to mislead his probation officer, a public official within the meaning of R.C. 102.01, in performing her official function.