If payment has been made upon any demand founded on a contract, or a written acknowledgment thereof, or a promise to pay it has been made and signed by the party to be charged, an action may be brought thereon within the time limited by sections 2305.06 and 2305.07 of the Revised Code, after such payment, acknowledgment, or promise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 1954–2019 · leading case: In Re Lake, 11 B.R. 202 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1981).
In Re Lake, 11 B.R. 202 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1981). · cites it 2דThe charge was a violation of Columbus City Code Section 2305.08, issuing a check knowing the check would be dishonored, a misdemeanor in the first degree.”
Slack v. Cropper, 757 N.E.2d 404 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2001). “07 and extends the running of the statute as provided in R.C. 2305.08. Similarly, in this case, appellants made payments on their bills for Pair of Queens in 1995.”
Mohammad v. Awadallah, 2012-Ohio-3455. “{¶23} Next, Mohammad claims that the “partial payment rule” found in contract law, see R.C. 2305.08, should be applicable to negotiable instruments.”
Rhynard v. Goubeaux, 192 N.E.2d 785 (Ohio Ct. App. 1962). · cites it 2ד” Section 2305.08, Revised Code, provides: “If payment has been made upon any demand founded on a contract, or a written acknowledgment thereof, or a promise to pay it has been made and signed by the party to be charged, an action may be brought thereon within the time limited…”
Bender v. Vaughan, 153 N.E.2d 778 (Ohio Ct. App. 1958). · cites it 2דAlthough the decree could not itself be regarded as a written acknowledgment or promise to pay the account made and signed by the party to be charged, as contemplated by the provisions of Section 2305.08, Revised Code, it is obvious that under the terms of the decree it was…”
Christoff v. Brunckhart, 204 N.E.2d 416 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 10ד70 of tbe Revised *212 Code constitute such part payment to a creditor as will toll the statute of limitations under Section 2305.08, Revised Code? Section 2305.”
Cummings v. Groszko, 603 N.E.2d 387 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1992). “Under R.C. 2305.08, “[i]f payment has been made upon a demand founded on a contract, or a written acknowledgement thereof, or a promise to pay it has been made and signed by the party to be charged, an action may be brought thereon within the time limited by sections 2305.”
State v. Thacker, 2016-Ohio-5732. “2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 , citing R.C. 2305.08(G)(2). {¶ 18} “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal…”
State v. Kiser, 2019-Ohio-3603. “{¶ 19} Without statutory authority to modify the prior sentence, we turn to whether modification of a void portion of appellant’s sentence was proper. While not addressed by either party, we address this issue here as it relates to the trial court’s ability to enter a judgment…”
Santelle v. Snyder, 210 N.E.2d 294 (Ohio Ct. App. 1965). · cites it 2ד07) or whether such payments were made as part payments on the whole rent account which would toll the statute under Section 2305.08. This was an issue of fact for the jury, which the court properly permitted to be raised by amended answer.”
First Nat'l Sec. Corp. v. Hott, 162 Ohio St. (N.S.) 258 (Ohio 1954). · cites it 2ד” Section 11223, General Code (Section 2305.08, Revised Code), then provides: *262 “If .”
Eastwood v. Capel, 164 Ohio St. (N.S.) 506 (Ohio 1956). · cites it 2דThe plaintiffs rely on the provisions of Section 11223, General Code (Section 2305.08, Eevised Code), which read: “If payment has been made upon any demand founded on a contract, or a written acknowledgment thereof, or a promise to pay it has been made and signed by the party to…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.08(G)(2): 1 case
State v. Thacker, 2016-Ohio-5732. “2016-Ohio-1002, ¶ 1 , citing R.C. 2305.08(G)(2). {¶ 18} “Clear and convincing evidence is that measure or degree of proof which is more than a mere ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ but not to the extent of such certainty as is required ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ in criminal…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.08(G)(2)(b): 1 case
State v. Kiser, 2019-Ohio-3603. “{¶ 19} Without statutory authority to modify the prior sentence, we turn to whether modification of a void portion of appellant’s sentence was proper. While not addressed by either party, we address this issue here as it relates to the trial court’s ability to enter a judgment…”
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.