6 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1983–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp.green2 sentences2022Nor has this court expressly ruled on the issue. 2 However, since 1983, the supreme court has applied the discovery rule to a variety of claims where application of the general rule that a cause of action exists from the time the wrongful act was committed "'would lead to the unconscionable result that the injured party's right to recovery [would] be barred by the statute of limitations before he is even aware of its existence.'" O'Stricker, 4 Ohio St.3d at 87 , quoting Wyler v. Tripi, 25 Ohio St.2d 164, 168 (1971). 2007See O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp. (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 84 . | 1 | 2 |
Chateau Estate Homes, L.L.C. v. Fifth Third Bankgreen2 sentences2023(Citations omitted.) Chateau Estate Homes v. Fifth Third Bank, 2017-Ohio-6985 , 95 N.E.3d 693, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.). {¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court has broadly rejected the applicability of the discovery rule to professional negligence claims without regard to the underlying nature of the profession. 2023(Citations omitted.) Chateau Estate Homes v. Fifth Third Bank, 2017-Ohio-6985 , 95 N.E.3d 693, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.). {¶10} The Ohio Supreme Court has broadly rejected the applicability of the discovery rule to professional negligence claims without regard to the underlying nature of the profession. | 1 | 1 |
Wyler v. Tripigreen1 sentence2022Nor has this court expressly ruled on the issue. 2 However, since 1983, the supreme court has applied the discovery rule to a variety of claims where application of the general rule that a cause of action exists from the time the wrongful act was committed "'would lead to the unconscionable result that the injured party's right to recovery [would] be barred by the statute of limitations before he is even aware of its existence.'" O'Stricker, 4 Ohio St.3d at 87 , quoting Wyler v. Tripi, 25 Ohio St.2d 164, 168 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
Flowers v. Walkergreen1 sentence2018Further, " '[c]onstructive knowledge of facts, rather than actual knowledge of their legal significance, is enough to start the statute of limitations running under the discovery rule.' " (Emphasis sic.) Id. at ¶ 30, quoting Flowers v. Walker, 63 Ohio St.3d 546, 549 (1992). {¶ 45} In the instant case, in addressing the applicability of the discovery rule, the probate court rejected appellants' argument that their fraud claim did not accrue until 2015, holding in part: The information plaintiffs needed to make a proper determination about the distribution of estate assets, as well as to assert | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Investors REIT One v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences2023While the court initially declined to apply the discovery rule to professional negligence claims specifically against accounts in Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 46 Ohio St.3d 176 , 546 N.E.2d 206 (1989), its holding in Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mtge. 2023While the court initially declined to apply the discovery rule to professional negligence claims specifically against accounts in Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 46 Ohio St.3d 176 , 546 N.E.2d 206 (1989), its holding in Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union’s Mtge. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Harris v. Liston
green
2 sentences2023Lucas No. L-22-1035, 2023-Ohio- 2251, appeal not accepted, 2023-Ohio-3670 , 2023 Ohio LEXIS 1982 , similarly held that the discovery rule was inapplicable to negligent design and supervision claims in a residential construction dispute. {¶12} The Breazeales argue that despite this well-established precedent, the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Liston, 86 Ohio St.3d 203 , 714 N.E.2d 377 (1999), carved out an exception for the applicability of the discovery rule to professional negligence claims when damage to real property is involved. 2023Lucas No. L-22-1035, 2023-Ohio- 2251, appeal not accepted, 2023-Ohio-3670 , 2023 Ohio LEXIS 1982 , similarly held that the discovery rule was inapplicable to negligent design and supervision claims in a residential construction dispute. {¶12} The Breazeales argue that despite this well-established precedent, the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Harris v. Liston, 86 Ohio St.3d 203 , 714 N.E.2d 377 (1999), carved out an exception for the applicability of the discovery rule to professional negligence claims when damage to real property is involved. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Helen J. Stoleson v. United States
green
1 sentence1991As was stated in Stoleson v. United States (C.A.7, 1980), 629 F.2d 1265 , 1269: “Urie teaches that it is the nature of the problems faced by a plaintiff in discovering his injury and its cause, and not the occupation of the defendant, that governs the applicability of the discovery rule. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Frohs v. Greene
green
2 sentences1983The Supreme Court of Oregon noted as follows in Frohs v. Greene (1969), 253 Ore. 1, 3-4 , 452 P. 2d 564 : “On a theoretical basis it is impossible to justify the applicability of the discovery rule to one kind of malpractice and not to another. 1983The Supreme Court of Oregon noted as follows in Frohs v. Greene (1969), 253 Ore. 1, 3-4 , 452 P. 2d 564 : “On a theoretical basis it is impossible to justify the applicability of the discovery rule to one kind of malpractice and not to another. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.