Except as provided for in division (C) of this section, an action for any of the following causes shall be brought within four years after the cause thereof accrued:
(A) For trespassing upon real property;
(B) For the recovery of personal property, or for taking or detaining it;
(C) For relief on the ground of fraud, except when the cause of action is a violation of section 2913.49 of the Revised Code, in which case the action shall be brought within five years after the cause thereof accrued;
(D) For an injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising on contract nor enumerated in sections 1304.35, 2305.10 to 2305.12, and 2305.14 of the Revised Code;
(E) For relief on the grounds of a physical or regulatory taking of real property.
If the action is for trespassing under ground or injury to mines, or for the wrongful taking of personal property, the causes thereof shall not accrue until the wrongdoer is discovered; nor, if it is for fraud, until the fraud is discovered.
An action for professional negligence against a registered surveyor shall be commenced within four years after the completion of the engagement on which the cause of action is based.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 603
cases (100 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case: Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 546 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1989).
Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 546 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 23דR.C. 2305.09 1 provides a general limitations period of four years for tort actions not specifically covered by other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.”
State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie MetroParks, 2010 Ohio 606 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 20דWe deny the writ because (1) res judicata neither entitles relators to the requested extraordinary relief nor prevents the park district and its board of commissioners from raising defenses that they did not raise in a previous mandamus action involving different relators and…”
LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency, 98 N.E.3d 241 (Ohio 2018). · cites it 13ד2d 672 , F & L argued that the cause of action accrued on the date the policy went into effect, May 12, 2010, and therefore, LGR's complaint, which was filed on April 17, 2015, was time barred by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.09. {¶ 5} LGR, relying…”
State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 2011 Ohio 6117 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 13דRelators did not institute this action until 2009; thus, respondents argue, relators’ claim is barred by the four-year limitations period of R.”
Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union's Mortg. Co., 2011 Ohio 1961 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 12דHe argued that the bank’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.09 because the complaint was filed more than four years after the appraisals were performed.”
Aluminum Line Prods. Co. v. Brad Smith Roofing Co., 671 N.E.2d 1343 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 20ד2d 82 , which we found to summarize the applicable law: “An action for the failure of a builder to perform in a workmanlike manner is a tort sounding m negligence and is governed by the four-year statute of limitations found in R.C. 2305.09. Benson v. Dorger (1972), 33 Ohio App.”
Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co., 467 N.E.2d 1378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 7דAppellant contends, however, that since it is alleged that the exposure was the result of ap-pellees’ fraudulent, intentional, and/or malicious conduct, the four-year limitation for fraud (R.C. 2305.09[C]) 4 rather than the two-year limitation for bodily injury (R.”
Cundall v. U.S. Bank, 2009 Ohio 2523 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 9ד] Trusts — Trustees — Action alleging fraud, self-dealing, and other breaches of fiduciary duty by trustees in sale of stock — Four-year limitations period in R.C. 2305.09 applies — Limitations period begins to run when alleged breaches should have been discovered by…”
Nadra v. Mbah, 119 Ohio St. 3d 305 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 18ד*310 {¶ 17} R.C. 2305.09 provides: {¶ 18} “An action for any of the following causes of action shall be brought within four years after the cause thereof accrued: {¶ 19} “* * * {¶ 20} “(D) For an injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising on contract nor enumerated in…”
Brian Bash v. Textron Fin. Corp., 834 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 4דThe Ohio Supreme Court has yet to expressly address the adverse domination doctrine in any context, and in December 2015, the court declined to answer a certified question from this court as to whether Ohio would “apply the doctrine of adverse domination to toll the statute of…”
Nazareth Deli, L.L.C. v. John W. Dawson Ins., Inc., 2022 Ohio 3994 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 9דAppellees argued appellants' claims accrued on December 3, 2012 when the Mazda was added to Baransi's personal auto policy, and that appellants' claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.09(D). Appellees further asserted Palmer had not breached a…”
Union Sav. Bank v. Lawyers Title Ins., 946 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 11דSpecifically, the court held that “[t]he General Assembly’s failure to include general negligence claims under the discovery rule set out in R.C. 2305.09 argues strongly that it was not the legislature’s intent to apply the discovery rule to such claims.”
State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 2011 Ohio 6117 (Ohio 2011). “Relators did not institute this action until 2009; thus, respondents argue, relators’ claim is barred by the four-year limitations period of R.”
Aluminum Line Prods. Co. v. Brad Smith Roofing Co., 671 N.E.2d 1343 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996). “2d 82 , which we found to summarize the applicable law: “An action for the failure of a builder to perform in a workmanlike manner is a tort sounding m negligence and is governed by the four-year statute of limitations found in R.C. 2305.09. Benson v. Dorger (1972), 33 Ohio App.”
LGR Realty, Inc. v. Frank & London Ins. Agency, 98 N.E.3d 241 (Ohio 2018). “2d 672 , F & L argued that the cause of action accrued on the date the policy went into effect, May 12, 2010, and therefore, LGR's complaint, which was filed on April 17, 2015, was time barred by the four-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.09. {¶ 5} LGR, relying…”
Investors REIT One v. Jacobs, 546 N.E.2d 206 (Ohio 1989). “R.C. 2305.09 1 provides a general limitations period of four years for tort actions not specifically covered by other sections of the Ohio Revised Code.”
Nazareth Deli, L.L.C. v. John W. Dawson Ins., Inc., 2022 Ohio 3994 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). “Appellees argued appellants' claims accrued on December 3, 2012 when the Mazda was added to Baransi's personal auto policy, and that appellants' claims were barred by the four-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.09(D). Appellees further asserted Palmer had not breached a…”
Nadra v. Mbah, 119 Ohio St. 3d 305 (Ohio 2008). “*310 {¶ 17} R.C. 2305.09 provides: {¶ 18} “An action for any of the following causes of action shall be brought within four years after the cause thereof accrued: {¶ 19} “* * * {¶ 20} “(D) For an injury to the rights of the plaintiff not arising on contract nor enumerated in…”
Flagstar Bank, F.S.B. v. Airline Union's Mortg. Co., 2011 Ohio 1961 (Ohio 2011). “He argued that the bank’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.09 because the complaint was filed more than four years after the appraisals were performed.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09(E): 25 cases
State ex rel. Nickoli v. Erie MetroParks, 2010 Ohio 606 (Ohio 2010). “We deny the writ because (1) res judicata neither entitles relators to the requested extraordinary relief nor prevents the park district and its board of commissioners from raising defenses that they did not raise in a previous mandamus action involving different relators and…”
State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 2011 Ohio 6117 (Ohio 2011). “Relators did not institute this action until 2009; thus, respondents argue, relators’ claim is barred by the four-year limitations period of R.”
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.