2025 Ohio 65
Ohio Ct. App.2025Background
- Dale Moore, a taxpayer, brought suit against the Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, the Board of County Commissioners, and the County Auditor, alleging illegal payment of compensation to the prosecutor's assistants in violation of R.C. 309.06(A).
- The statute at issue allows the judges of the court of common pleas to "may fix" (discretionary) an aggregate sum for prosecutor's assistants’ salaries, but historically, the judges had not set such a sum.
- Moore alleged that since no sum was fixed by the judges, any appropriation by the Board to pay assistants was unlawful.
- Both parties agreed no material facts were in dispute and submitted the matter for summary judgment based solely on legal interpretation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding the judges’ act was discretionary and did not preclude payment if they declined to set a sum.
- Moore appealed, arguing that compensation was unauthorized absent a fixed aggregate sum by the judges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 309.06(A) require judges to set an aggregate sum before prosecutor’s assistants can be paid? | Judges’ failure to fix sum means assistants’ payment is unlawful. | Statute is discretionary; no prohibition against payment if judges don’t act. | Judges’ action is discretionary; payment is lawful without an aggregate sum fixed. |
| Purpose and effect of statute’s "may fix" language | Condition precedent; without action, payment is barred. | Only sets a ceiling if exercised; does not bar payment otherwise. | Prosecutor may set compensation unless judges exercise discretion to set a maximum. |
| Relevance of 1912 and 1933 AG Opinions | Support mandatory judicial action for lawful payment. | Opinions not binding; statutory text is plain and unambiguous. | AG opinions are not persuasive; statute’s meaning is clear. |
| Impact of R.C. 325.17 & 325.27 on board’s authority | Exclusion of prosecutor from statute bars Board from appropriating funds for assistants. | Judges’ discretion in 309.06(A) does not bar Board’s lawful appropriations. | Board may appropriate funds if procedures are followed and judges don’t fix a sum. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Burrows v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 78 (plain meaning of unambiguous statutes must be applied)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (summary judgment standard)
- Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621 (statutory interpretation focuses on enacted words)
- Cleveland Elec. Illuminating Co. v. Cleveland, 37 Ohio St.3d 50 (courts may not read words into statutes)