Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.12 (2026)

Parties defendant - multiple proceedings - statute of limitations

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

February 20, 2002

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 126 - 124th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) In any action or proceeding in quo warranto, in injunction, or otherwise brought by the attorney general or a prosecuting attorney under sections 1331.01 to 1331.14 of the Revised Code, all persons that are party to or participating in the trust or conspiracy against trade violative of those sections may be made parties defendant and summoned, whether or not they reside in the county in which the action or proceeding is instituted. Actions or proceedings in quo warranto and in injunction may be instituted simultaneously, or while one or another of them is pending, such actions or proceedings being started in the proper court as provided in section 1331.11 of the Revised Code, and no action or proceeding in injunction is a bar to an action or proceeding in quo warranto, nor is an action or proceeding in quo warranto a bar to one instituted to restrain and enjoin.

(B) Any civil or criminal action or proceeding for a violation of sections 1331.01 to 1331.14 of the Revised Code, other than one upon which an action was brought in any court by any person not later than forty-five days after the effective date of the current amendment, shall be forever barred unless commenced within four years after the cause of action accrued.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case: Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (Ohio 2005). “021 (petroleum products competition provision adopted in 1981, 139 Ohio Laws, Part II, 2894); R.C. 1331.08 (augmenting available damages from double to treble in 2002 in an apparent attempt to conform with federal antitrust law, 149 Ohio Laws, Part IV, 6455); R.”

Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Ins. Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 801 (N.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 6× “See Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.12, amendment note (Banks-Baldwin 1994).”

Nilavar v. Mercy Health Sys.-W. Ohio, 142 F. Supp. 2d 859 (S.D. Ohio 2000). · cites it 2× “Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.12(B). Accordingly, Plaintiff's state law antitrust claim is also timely.”

O'Banion v. Am. Aggregates Corp. (S.D. Ohio 2021). · cites it 2× “See O.R.C. § 1331.12(B). Here, the alleged antitrust violation accrued when the Deed was conveyed to O’Banion over thirty years ago.”

Trane U.S. Inc. v. Meehan, 563 F. Supp. 2d 743 (N.D. Ohio 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 15b. Because the state Valentine Act claim (Count Five) also has a four year statute of limitations, I will address the statute of limitations arguments on the federal and state claims together.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 1331.12(B) — 4 cases

Iron Workers Local Union No. 17 Ins. Fund v. Philip Morris Inc., 29 F. Supp. 2d 801 (N.D. Ohio 1998). “See Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.12, amendment note (Banks-Baldwin 1994).”

Nilavar v. Mercy Health Sys.-W. Ohio, 142 F. Supp. 2d 859 (S.D. Ohio 2000). “Ohio Rev.Code § 1331.12(B). Accordingly, Plaintiff's state law antitrust claim is also timely.”

O'Banion v. Am. Aggregates Corp. (S.D. Ohio 2021). “See O.R.C. § 1331.12(B). Here, the alleged antitrust violation accrued when the Deed was conveyed to O’Banion over thirty years ago.”

Trane U.S. Inc. v. Meehan, 563 F. Supp. 2d 743 (N.D. Ohio 2008). “§ 15b. Because the state Valentine Act claim (Count Five) also has a four year statute of limitations, I will address the statute of limitations arguments on the federal and state claims together.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.