action are the determinative factors (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

action are the determinative factors in Ohio

44 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1992–2026 7 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)

CaseFollowedCited
Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp.green
ohio · 1984 · cited in 26 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1992–2026
2 sentences

2026“The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors; the form is immaterial.” Id.

2022The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial.” Id. at 183 , citing Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins.

426
Love v. City of Port Clintongreen
ohio · 1988 · cited in 14 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1994–2022
2 sentences

2021“The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial.” Love v. Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St.3d 98, 99 , 524 N.E.2d 166 (1988); see also, Doe v. First United Methodist Church, 68 Ohio St.3d 531 , 629 N.E.2d 402 (1994). {¶46} We find that the only possible interpretation of the complaint is that it states a claim for damage to personal property subject to the two-year statute of limitations Guernsey County, Case No. 20CA000011 17 described in R.C. 2305.10(A).

2021“The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial.” Love v. Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St.3d 98, 99 , 524 N.E.2d 166 (1988); see also, Doe v. First United Methodist Church, 68 Ohio St.3d 531 , 629 N.E.2d 402 (1994). {¶46} We find that the only possible interpretation of the complaint is that it states a claim for damage to personal property subject to the two-year statute of limitations Guernsey County, Case No. 20CA000011 17 described in R.C. 2305.10(A).

414
Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co. v. Muethinggreen
ohio · 1992 · cited in 10 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1998–2017
2 sentences

2014The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors[;] the form is immaterial.’” Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co. v. Muething, 65 Ohio St.3d 273, 277-278 (1992), quoting Hambleton v. R.G.

2001"The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors; the form is immaterial." Id. at 277-278 .

310
Doe v. First United Methodist Churchgreen
ohio · 1994 · cited in 4 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2000–2021
2 sentences

2021“The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial.” Love v. Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St.3d 98, 99 , 524 N.E.2d 166 (1988); see also, Doe v. First United Methodist Church, 68 Ohio St.3d 531 , 629 N.E.2d 402 (1994). {¶46} We find that the only possible interpretation of the complaint is that it states a claim for damage to personal property subject to the two-year statute of limitations Guernsey County, Case No. 20CA000011 17 described in R.C. 2305.10(A).

2021“The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial.” Love v. Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St.3d 98, 99 , 524 N.E.2d 166 (1988); see also, Doe v. First United Methodist Church, 68 Ohio St.3d 531 , 629 N.E.2d 402 (1994). {¶46} We find that the only possible interpretation of the complaint is that it states a claim for damage to personal property subject to the two-year statute of limitations Guernsey County, Case No. 20CA000011 17 described in R.C. 2305.10(A).

34
Smith v. Katzmangreen
ohioctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2011–2011
1 sentence

2011The Brittinghams assert that the claim is one for “ordinary negligence.” The Brittinghams rely on Smith v. Katzman (1992), 81 Ohio App.3d 682, 686 (applying two-year statute of limitations and determining that the “fact that Mr. Smith was required to take the examination as a precondition to Social Security benefits and that its purpose was to obtain information for the Social Security Administration is distinguishable from the diagnosis, care or treatment which constitutes a medical claim”), and New York Central Rd.

11
Gullatte v. Riongreen
ohioctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
1 sentence

2002Barry Corp. (1984), 12 Ohio St.3d 179 , 183 ; see, also, Gullatte v. Rion (2000), 145 Ohio App.3d 620 , 626 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (6)

CaseCitedYears
Peterson v. Teodosio green
ohio · 1973
2 sentences

2022Co., 1 Ohio St.3d 79 , 437 N.E.2d 1194 (1982) and Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 , 297 N.E.2d 113 (1973). {¶30} This claim is not subject to the statute of limitations unless and until the trial court determines the meaning of the section and the Trustee fails to abide by that interpretation.

2022Co., 1 Ohio St.3d 79 , 437 N.E.2d 1194 (1982) and Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 , 297 N.E.2d 113 (1973). {¶30} This claim is not subject to the statute of limitations unless and until the trial court determines the meaning of the section and the Trustee fails to abide by that interpretation.

12022–2022
Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins. green
ohio · 1982
2 sentences

2022Co., 1 Ohio St.3d 79 , 437 N.E.2d 1194 (1982) and Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 , 297 N.E.2d 113 (1973). {¶30} This claim is not subject to the statute of limitations unless and until the trial court determines the meaning of the section and the Trustee fails to abide by that interpretation.

2022Co., 1 Ohio St.3d 79 , 437 N.E.2d 1194 (1982) and Peterson v. Teodosio, 34 Ohio St.2d 161 , 297 N.E.2d 113 (1973). {¶30} This claim is not subject to the statute of limitations unless and until the trial court determines the meaning of the section and the Trustee fails to abide by that interpretation.

12022–2022
Bear v. Bear neutral
ohioctapp · 2014
2 sentences

2017Summit No. 26810, 2014-Ohio-2919 , 2014 WL 2986461 , ¶ 23, citing Civ.R. 9(B). {¶ 16} In the present case, Cohen's complaint contains the following five counts: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) aiding, abetting, inducing, or participating in breach of fiduciary duty; (3) waste; (4) deepening insolvency and wrongful prolongation of corporate existence; and (5) breach of fiduciary duty owed to creditors.

2017Summit No. 26810, 2014-Ohio-2919 , 2014 WL 2986461 , at ¶ 18, quoting Lawyers Cooperative Publishing Co. v. Muething , 65 Ohio St.3d 273 , 277-278, 603 N.E.2d 969 (1992), quoting Hambleton v. R.G.

12017–2017
William J. Templeman Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance green
illappct · 2000
1 sentence

2013The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial." ' " Id., quoting Love v. Port Clinton, 37 Ohio St.3d 98, 99 (1988), quoting Hambleton v. R.G.

12013–2013
Grover v. Bartsch green
ohioctapp · 2006
2 sentences

2011The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial.’ (Citations omitted).” Grover v. Bartsch, 170 Ohio App.3d 188, 202 , 2006-Ohio-6115, ¶ 52 . {¶ 16} The Brittinghams assert that their negligence claim against Dr. Stull is not a 7 medical claim. “‘Medical claim’ means any claim that is asserted in any civil action against a physician * * * and that arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person. ‘Medical claim’ includes derivative claims for relief that arise from the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a person.” R.C. 2305.11

2011The grounds for bringing the action are the determinative factors, the form is immaterial.’ (Citations omitted).” Grover v. Bartsch, 170 Ohio App.3d 188, 202 , 2006-Ohio-6115, ¶ 52 . {¶ 16} The Brittinghams assert that their negligence claim against Dr. Stull is not a 7 medical claim. “‘Medical claim’ means any claim that is asserted in any civil action against a physician * * * and that arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person. ‘Medical claim’ includes derivative claims for relief that arise from the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of a person.” R.C. 2305.11

12011–2011
Lorain County Bar Ass'n v. Kocak neutral
ohio · 2009
2 sentences

2009Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396 , 2009-Ohio-1430 , 904 N.E.2d 885 , ¶ 17, quoting Gov.Bar R.

2009Bar Assn. v. Kocak, 121 Ohio St.3d 396 , 2009-Ohio-1430 , 904 N.E.2d 885 , ¶ 17, quoting Gov.Bar R.

12009–2009

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09 (14) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.10 (11) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11 (7) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.04 (6) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.111 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.06 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.14 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.113 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.16 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.19 (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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check