Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2024 1 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Goolsby v. Anderson Concrete Corp.green2 sentences2024Consequently, we hold that when service has not been obtained within one year of filing a complaint, and the subsequent refiling of an identical complaint within rule would provide an additional year within which to obtain service and commence an action under Civ.R. 3(A), an instruction to the clerk to attempt service on the complaint will be equivalent to a refiling of the complaint. -18- Goolsby, 61 Ohio St.3d at 550-551 , 575 N.E.2d 801 . {¶ 40} In a more recent case, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered R.C. 2305.17, Civ.R. 3(A), R.C. 2305.19, and Goolsby. 2024Consequently, we hold that when service has not been obtained within one year of filing a complaint, and the subsequent refiling of an identical complaint within rule would provide an additional year within which to obtain service and commence an action under Civ.R. 3(A), an instruction to the clerk to attempt service on the complaint will be equivalent to a refiling of the complaint. -18- Goolsby, 61 Ohio St.3d at 550-551 , 575 N.E.2d 801 . {¶ 40} In a more recent case, the Supreme Court of Ohio considered R.C. 2305.17, Civ.R. 3(A), R.C. 2305.19, and Goolsby. | 2 | 12 |
Thomas v. Freemangreen1 sentence1999See Thomas, supra. See also Goolsby v. Anderson Concrete Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 549 , syllabus ("When service has not been obtained within one year of filing a complaint, and the subsequent refiling of an identical complaint within rule would provide an additional year within which to obtain service and commence an action under Civ. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Amerine v. Haughton Elevator Co.
green
2 sentences2007Thus, the majority concludes that LaNeve had an additional year from May 6, 2005, within which to perfect service upon China Shipping and Container-Port. {¶ 32} However, construing LaNeve’s amended complaint as a refiled original complaint is not permissible under Ohio law. {¶ 33} “In determining if a previously unknown, now known, defendant has been properly served so as to avoid the time of an applicable statute of limitations, Civ.R. 15(D) must be read in conjunction with Civ.R. 15(C) and 3(A).” Amerine v. Haughton Elevator Co. (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 57 , 537 N.E.2d 208 , at syllabus. {¶ 34} 2007Thus, the majority concludes that LaNeve had an additional year from May 6, 2005, within which to perfect service upon China Shipping and Container-Port. {¶ 32} However, construing LaNeve’s amended complaint as a refiled original complaint is not permissible under Ohio law. {¶ 33} “In determining if a previously unknown, now known, defendant has been properly served so as to avoid the time of an applicable statute of limitations, Civ.R. 15(D) must be read in conjunction with Civ.R. 15(C) and 3(A).” Amerine v. Haughton Elevator Co. (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 57 , 537 N.E.2d 208 , at syllabus. {¶ 34} | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Fetterolf v. Hoffmann-Laroche, Inc.
green
2 sentences2007In Goolsby v. Anderson Concrete Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 549 , 575 N.E.2d 801 , at the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held: {¶ 14} “When service has not been obtained within one year of filing a complaint, and the subsequent refiling of an identical complaint within rule would provide an additional year within which to obtain service and commence an action under Civ.R. 3(A), an instruction to the clerk to attempt service on the complaint will be equivalent to a refiling of the complaint.” {¶ 15} This rule applies, even though the statute of limitations expires during the one-year perio 2007In Goolsby v. Anderson Concrete Corp. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 549 , 575 N.E.2d 801 , at the syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held: {¶ 14} “When service has not been obtained within one year of filing a complaint, and the subsequent refiling of an identical complaint within rule would provide an additional year within which to obtain service and commence an action under Civ.R. 3(A), an instruction to the clerk to attempt service on the complaint will be equivalent to a refiling of the complaint.” {¶ 15} This rule applies, even though the statute of limitations expires during the one-year perio | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Meek v. Nova Steel Processing, Inc.
green
1 sentence2004The courts in Meek v. Nova Steel Processing, Inc. (1997), 124 Ohio App.3d 367 , and Bank One, Columbus, NA v. O'Brien (Dec. 31, 1991), 10th Dist. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.
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.