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.
9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2013 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Villareal v. State, Dept. of Transp.green1 sentence2005See Villareal v. Arizona Dept. of Trans., (Ariz. 1989), 774 P.2d 213 . {¶ 17} Civ.R. 19.1 expressly provides for compulsory joinder of persons bringing derivative claims like spousal consortium or a parent's consortium claim where a minor child is injured. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013Bowen v. Kil–Kare, Inc., 63 Ohio St.3d 84 , 92–93, 585 N.E.2d 384 (1992). 1999The first assignment of error states: *86 “The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the consortium claim of Sharon Mendelsohn and all claims against Habitat International because they were not parties to the waiver and release.” Here, citing Bowen v. Kil-Kare, Inc. (1992), 68 Ohio St.3d 84 , 585 N.E.2d 384 , Sharon claims that her loss-of-consortium claim should not be precluded by the waiver that Richard signed, and, therefore, the court erred in granting summary judgment on that claim. | 4 | 1999–2013 |
Hershberger v. Akron City Hospital
green
2 sentences2006In Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 1 , 516 N.E.2d 204 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court held: “The statute of limitations for a loss of consortium claim is initiated on the same date that the statute of limitations for the spouse’s medical malpractice claim begins to run.” The court disagreed with the lower court’s holding that a spouse’s consortium claim accrues when the alleged malpractice occurred. 2006In Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 1 , 516 N.E.2d 204 , paragraph two of the syllabus, the Ohio Supreme Court held: “The statute of limitations for a loss of consortium claim is initiated on the same date that the statute of limitations for the spouse’s medical malpractice claim begins to run.” The court disagreed with the lower court’s holding that a spouse’s consortium claim accrues when the alleged malpractice occurred. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co.
green
2 sentences2006In Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 7, 16 , 13 OBR 8, 467 N.E.2d 1378 , 2 the court observed that a consortium claim may accrue at a different time from the injured spouse’s cause of action: We recognize that in many instances, * * * the accrual of the loss of consortium of one’s spouse will, necessarily, coincide with the accrual of that spouse’s cause of action. 2006In Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 7, 16 , 13 OBR 8, 467 N.E.2d 1378 , 2 the court observed that a consortium claim may accrue at a different time from the injured spouse’s cause of action: We recognize that in many instances, * * * the accrual of the loss of consortium of one’s spouse will, necessarily, coincide with the accrual of that spouse’s cause of action. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Dean v. Angelas
green
1 sentence2003Dean v. Angelas (1970), 24 Ohio St.2d 99 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Schaefer v. Allstate Insurance
green
1 sentence2000Schaefer, supra , Hildebrandt, J., dissenting. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Lee v. Colorado Department of Health
green
1 sentence1992The derivative approach avoids much of this potential for conflict * * Id. at 232 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.