application of the discovery rule in Ohio

13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Doe v. First United Methodist Churchgreen ohio · 1994 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1994–2006 2 sentences 2006Doe contends that his claims were not subject to dismissal because he alleges that he did not know until April 2002 that there were other alleged victims of Hopp, and thus, he did not discover the claims that he had until 2002. {¶ 13} This court discussed the application of the discovery rule to child-sex-abuse cases in Doe v. First United Methodist Church, 68 Ohio St.3d 531 , 629 N.E.2d 402 . 2006Doe contends that his claims were not subject to dismissal because he alleges that he did not know until April 2002 that there were other alleged victims of Hopp, and thus, he did not discover the claims that he had until 2002. {¶ 13} This court discussed the application of the discovery rule to child-sex-abuse cases in Doe v. First United Methodist Church, 68 Ohio St.3d 531 , 629 N.E.2d 402 .	1	2
Shover v. Cordis Corp.green ohio · 1991 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020 1 sentence 2020Shover v. Cordis Corp., 61 Ohio St.3d 213, 215 (1991).	1	1
O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp.green ohio · 1983 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015“The general rule is that a cause of action exists from the time the wrongful act is committed.” Flagstar at ¶ 13, citing O’Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp, 4 Ohio St.3d 84, 87 (1983).	1	1
Browning v. Burtgreen ohio · 1993 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015The exception to the general rule is the “discovery rule[, which] provides that a cause of action does not arise until the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, that he or she had been injured by the conduct of the defendant.” Flagstar at ¶ 14, citing Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506, 507 (1998). {¶16} The application of the discovery rule is not uniform, however, and, “[b]y its very nature, the discovery rule (concept) must be specially tailored to the particular context in which it is to be applied.” Flagstar at ¶ 15, quoting Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St	1	1
Collins v. Sotkagreen ohio · 1998 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 1 sentence 2015The exception to the general rule is the “discovery rule[, which] provides that a cause of action does not arise until the plaintiff knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, that he or she had been injured by the conduct of the defendant.” Flagstar at ¶ 14, citing Collins v. Sotka, 81 Ohio St.3d 506, 507 (1998). {¶16} The application of the discovery rule is not uniform, however, and, “[b]y its very nature, the discovery rule (concept) must be specially tailored to the particular context in which it is to be applied.” Flagstar at ¶ 15, quoting Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St	1	1
Squire, Supt. v. Grn. Trust Co.green ohioctapp · 1947 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996 2 sentences 1996Investors REIT One, 46 Ohio St.3d at 182 , 546 N.E.2d at 211-212 ; see, Squire v. Guardian Trust Co. (1947), 79 Ohio App. 371 , 35 O.O. 144 , 72 N.E.2d 137 . 1996Investors REIT One, 46 Ohio St.3d at 182 , 546 N.E.2d at 211-212 ; see, Squire v. Guardian Trust Co. (1947), 79 Ohio App. 371 , 35 O.O. 144 , 72 N.E.2d 137 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (17)

Case	Cited	Years
Investors REIT One v. Jacobs green ohio · 1989 2 sentences 2011We have cautioned: “By its very nature, the discovery rule (concept) must be specially tailored to the particular context in which it is to be applied.” Id. at 559. {¶ 16} This court specifically addressed the application of the discovery rule to a claim for professional negligence involving accountants in Investors REIT One v. Jacobs (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 176 , 546 N.E.2d 206 . 2011We have cautioned: “By its very nature, the discovery rule (concept) must be specially tailored to the particular context in which it is to be applied.” Id. at 559. {¶ 16} This court specifically addressed the application of the discovery rule to a claim for professional negligence involving accountants in Investors REIT One v. Jacobs (1989), 46 Ohio St.3d 176 , 546 N.E.2d 206 .	4	1995–2017
Grant Thornton v. Windsor House, Inc. green ohio · 1991 2 sentences 2017Flagstar at ¶ 25, citing REIT One , 46 Ohio St.3d at 182 , 546 N.E.2d 206 , and Grant Thornton , 57 Ohio St.3d 158 , 566 N.E.2d 1220 . 2017Flagstar at ¶ 25, citing REIT One , 46 Ohio St.3d at 182 , 546 N.E.2d 206 , and Grant Thornton , 57 Ohio St.3d 158 , 566 N.E.2d 1220 .	2	2011–2017
Osland v. Osland green nd · 1989 2 sentences 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 . 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 9} In Osland, 442 N.W.2d 907 , the North Dakota Supreme Court applied the discovery rule to a case brought by a twenty-two-year-old plaintiff against her father for sexual abuse th 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 .	2	1994–1994
Hammer v. Hammer green wisctapp · 1987 2 sentences 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 . 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 .	2	1994–1994
Meiers-Post v. Schafer green michctapp · 1988 2 sentences 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 . 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 .	2	1994–1994
Evans v. Eckelman green calctapp · 1990 2 sentences 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 . 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 .	2	1994–1994
Doe v. LaBrosse green ri · 1991 2 sentences 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 . 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 9} In Osland, 442 N.W.2d 907 , the North Dakota Supreme Court applied the discovery rule to a case brought by a twenty-two-year-old plaintiff against her father for sexual abuse th 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 .	2	1994–1994
Jones v. Jones green njsuperctappdiv · 1990 2 sentences 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 . 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 .	2	1994–1994
Oliver v. Kaiser Community Health Foundation green ohio · 1983 2 sentences 1994By focusing on discovery as the element which triggers the statute of limitations, the discovery rule gives those injured adequate time to seek relief on the merits without undue prejudice to * * * defendants.” Id. at 114 , 5 OBR at 250, 449 N.E.2d at 441 . 1994By focusing on discovery as the element which triggers the statute of limitations, the discovery rule gives those injured adequate time to seek relief on the merits without undue prejudice to * * * defendants.” Id. at 114 , 5 OBR at 250, 449 N.E.2d at 441 .	2	1994–1994
Callahan v. State green iowa · 1990 2 sentences 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 . 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶ 9} In Osland, 442 N.W.2d 907 , the North Dakota Supreme Court applied the discovery rule to a case brought by a twenty-two-year-old plaintiff against her father for sexual abuse th 1994Callahan v. Iowa (Iowa 1990), 464 N.W.2d 268 ; Doe v. LaBrosse (R.I.1991), 588 A.2d 605 ; Evans v. Eckelman (1990), 216 Cal.App.3d 1609 , 265 Cal.Rptr. 605 ; Hammer v. Hammer (App.1987), 142 Wis.2d 257 , 418 N.W.2d 23 ; Jones v. Jones (1990), 242 N.J.Super. 195 , 576 A.2d 316 ; Meiers-Post v. Schafer (1988), 170 Mich.App. 174 , 427 N.W.2d 606 ; Osland v. Osland (N.D.1989), 442 N.W.2d 907 .	2	1994–1994
Hater v. Gradison Division of McDonald & Co. green ohioctapp · 1995 1 sentence 2017We stated that the distinction between the discovery rule and the delayed-damages rule is "a distinction without a difference." Id. at 110, 655 N.E.2d 189 .	1	2017–2017
Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati green ohio · 2006 1 sentence 2015Instead, the Olds contend that the application of the discovery rule should have tolled time for the purposes of the statute of limitations, and that there is a question of fact regarding when they should have been expected to discover the alleged fraud. {¶14} A statute of limitations “serve[s] a gatekeeping function for courts by (1) ensuring fairness to the defendant, (2) encouraging prompt prosecution of causes of action, (3) suppressing stale and fraudulent claims, and (4) avoiding the inconveniences engendered by delay – specifically, the difficulties of proof present in older cases.” Doe	1	2015–2015
Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union's Mortgage Co. green ohio · 2011 2 sentences 2015Cundall at ¶ 30 . {¶15} In concluding that the Olds’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the trial court relied on the authority of Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mtge Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 529 , 2011-Ohio-1961 . 2015Cundall at ¶ 30 . {¶15} In concluding that the Olds’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations, the trial court relied on the authority of Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mtge Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 529 , 2011-Ohio-1961 .	1	2015–2015
Harris v. Liston green ohio · 1999 1 sentence 2008As to the application of the discovery rule, which is the crux of this appeal, the trial court found, citing Harris v. Liston (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 203 , 205-206 : "The Ohio Supreme Court has extended the discovery rule to actions alleging damage to real property, and the effect of the rule is to delay the commencement of the statute of limitations until `it is first discovered, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence it should have been discovered, that there is damage to the property.' [Harris] at 207 (emphasis added).	1	2008–2008
Kraly v. Vannewkirk green ohio · 1994 1 sentence 2007"Where the liability insurer of a tortfeasor has been declared insolvent, a right of action of an insured injured by the tortfeasor against his insurer under the uninsured motorist provision of his automobile insurance contract accrues on the date that the insured receives notice of the insolvency." 69 Ohio St.3d 627 , at paragraph three of the syllabus.	1	2007–2007
Ault v. Jasko green ohio · 1994 1 sentence 1999It was not until August 31, 1994, that the Ohio Supreme Court held in Ault v. Jasko (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 114 , paragraph one of the syllabus, that "[t]he discovery rule applies in Ohio to toll the statute of limitations where a victim of childhood sexual abuse represses memories of that abuse until a later time." The Court further held at paragraph two of syllabus: The one-year statute of limitations period for sexual abuse in Ohio begins to run when the victim recalls or otherwise discovers that he or she was sexually abused, or when, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, the victim	1	1999–1999
Wilkinson v. Harrington green ri · 1968 2 sentences 1983We should not overlook the fact that the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case before the defendant is obliged to produce any evidence. * * ” See, also, Wilkinson v. Harrington (1968), 104 R.I. 224 , 243 A. 2d 745 , wherein the Supreme Court of Rhode Island at page 238 states: “ * * It would appear from the modern trend towards the application of the discovery rule, that courts are beginning to conclude that only the negligent physician is protected by the strict interpretation of the statute of limitations in malpractice cases at the cruel expense of the 1983We should not overlook the fact that the plaintiff must produce evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case before the defendant is obliged to produce any evidence. * * ” See, also, Wilkinson v. Harrington (1968), 104 R.I. 224 , 243 A. 2d 745 , wherein the Supreme Court of Rhode Island at page 238 states: “ * * It would appear from the modern trend towards the application of the discovery rule, that courts are beginning to conclude that only the negligent physician is protected by the strict interpretation of the statute of limitations in malpractice cases at the cruel expense of the	1	1983–1983

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 86 (1981–2026) IL 43 (1975–2025) PA 33 (1985–2025) NJ 28 (1978–2025) CA 26 (1998–2022) WA 15 (1983–2020) OH 13 (1983–2020) IA 12 (1981–2023) WV 11 (1965–2017) MS 11 (2002–2020) UT 10 (1990–2024) MD 10 (1980–2016) TN 10 (1995–2024) MI 9 (1989–2018) LA 8 (1994–2017) OK 8 (1992–2021) IN 8 (1996–2016) NM 8 (2005–2024) WI 7 (1991–2015) SC 7 (1997–2016) ME 7 (1981–2018) RI 7 (1991–2023) WY 7 (2000–2018) AZ 6 (1988–2023) MA 6 (1993–2024) VI 6 (2002–2025) ND 5 (1999–2019) AK 4 (2002–2014) HI 4 (1967–2021) DC 4 (1979–1994) NH 4 (1977–2021) OR 3 (1993–2015) KS 2 (1995–1996) MT 2 (1988–2002) NE 2 (1997–2006)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check