Notes of Decisions
Cited in
740
cases (
139 in the last 5 years), 1953–2026 · leading case:
Mominee v. Scherbarth, 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986).
Mominee v. Scherbarth, 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986).
· cites it 91× “Given the important considerations involved in these controversies, a brief history of the various challenges to R.C. 2305.11 is essential to the resolution of the cause sub judice.”
Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., 514 N.E.2d 709 (Ohio 1987).
· cites it 43× “As a cause of action separate and distinct from medical malpractice, a claim of fraud is subject not to the medical malpractice statute of limitations contained in R.C. 2305.11, but rather to R.C. 2305.09, 2 which pro *57 vides a four-year limitations period for fraud.”
Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St. 3d 544 (Ohio 1993).
· cites it 49× “” Conversely, appellees contend that under Allenius, supra, the “West 57th” television program was the “cognizable event” which commenced the running of the R.”
Harris v. Cunix, 2022 Ohio 839 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 30× “21AP-13 8 by the one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.11. The victims opposed summary judgment, arguing that their R.”
State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999).
· cites it 15× “131 as a fifteen-year statute of repose with certain exceptions, and provides for a fifteen-year statute of repose for wrongful death actions involving a product liability claim (R.C. 2125.02[D][2]), a fifteen-year statute of repose for product liability claims (R.”
Oliver v. Kaiser Cmty. Health Found., 449 N.E.2d 438 (Ohio 1983).
· cites it 17× “The statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice, R.C. 2305.11, provides, in pertinent part, that: “(A) An action for * * * malpractice, including an action for malpractice against a physician * * * or a hospital * * * shall be brought within one year after the cause…”
Schwan v. Riverside Methodist Hosp., 452 N.E.2d 1337 (Ohio 1983).
· cites it 20× “3d 111 , to uphold the application of R.C. 2305.11 as a bar to recovery. Neither Baird nor Meros , however, presented the equal protection question which we have answered today.”
Browning v. Burt, 1993 Ohio 178 (Ohio 1993).
· cites it 63× “11(B)(1)—Negligent credentialing of a physician by hospital is not "medical diagnosis, care or treatment" within meaning of R.C. 2305.11—Action against hospital for bodily injury arising from negligent credentialing of physician subject to two-year limitations period in R.”
Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7432 (Ohio 2016).
· cites it 7× “See Article VIII, Section 7, 1802 Constitution and Article I, Section 16, 1851 Ohio Constitution. These constitutional rights have been under assault for decades—since at least the 1970s, when the General Assembly enacted former R.”
Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp., 516 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 1987).
· cites it 14× “We first consider the cause of action alleged by appellant Rickey Hershberger, and whether his claim was timely filed pursuant to R.C. 2305.11(A) and/or 2305.11(B). For the reasons which follow, we reverse the judgments below and remand this cause to the trial court for further…”
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024).
· cites it 40× “] Statute of limitations—R.C. 2305.11—Libel—Discovery rule—Discovery rule applies to claims of libel based on reputational injuries when the publication of the libelous statements was secretive, concealed, or otherwise inherently unknowable to plaintiff due to nature of the…”
Smith v. Conley, 846 N.E.2d 509 (Ohio 2006).
· cites it 11× “{¶ 1} The sole issue presented in this appeal is whether the termination of the attorney-client relationship for purposes of R.C. 2305.11 (time limitation on bringing a legal-malpractice claim) is dependent upon the filing of a motion to withdraw pursuant to a local rule of…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(A) — 416 cases
Harris v. Cunix, 2022 Ohio 839 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
“21AP-13 8 by the one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.11. The victims opposed summary judgment, arguing that their R.”
Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., 514 N.E.2d 709 (Ohio 1987).
“As a cause of action separate and distinct from medical malpractice, a claim of fraud is subject not to the medical malpractice statute of limitations contained in R.C. 2305.11, but rather to R.C. 2305.09, 2 which pro *57 vides a four-year limitations period for fraud.”
Hershberger v. Akron City Hosp., 516 N.E.2d 204 (Ohio 1987).
“We first consider the cause of action alleged by appellant Rickey Hershberger, and whether his claim was timely filed pursuant to R.C. 2305.11(A) and/or 2305.11(B). For the reasons which follow, we reverse the judgments below and remand this cause to the trial court for further…”
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024).
“] Statute of limitations—R.C. 2305.11—Libel—Discovery rule—Discovery rule applies to claims of libel based on reputational injuries when the publication of the libelous statements was secretive, concealed, or otherwise inherently unknowable to plaintiff due to nature of the…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(A)(1) — 4 cases
Harris v. Cunix, 2022 Ohio 839 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
“21AP-13 8 by the one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.11. The victims opposed summary judgment, arguing that their R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(A)(2)(a) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(B) — 81 cases
Mominee v. Scherbarth, 503 N.E.2d 717 (Ohio 1986).
“Given the important considerations involved in these controversies, a brief history of the various challenges to R.C. 2305.11 is essential to the resolution of the cause sub judice.”
Gaines v. Preterm-Cleveland, Inc., 514 N.E.2d 709 (Ohio 1987).
“As a cause of action separate and distinct from medical malpractice, a claim of fraud is subject not to the medical malpractice statute of limitations contained in R.C. 2305.11, but rather to R.C. 2305.09, 2 which pro *57 vides a four-year limitations period for fraud.”
Schwan v. Riverside Methodist Hosp., 452 N.E.2d 1337 (Ohio 1983).
“3d 111 , to uphold the application of R.C. 2305.11 as a bar to recovery. Neither Baird nor Meros , however, presented the equal protection question which we have answered today.”
Antoon v. Cleveland Clinic Found. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 7432 (Ohio 2016).
“See Article VIII, Section 7, 1802 Constitution and Article I, Section 16, 1851 Ohio Constitution. These constitutional rights have been under assault for decades—since at least the 1970s, when the General Assembly enacted former R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(B)(1) — 56 cases
Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St. 3d 544 (Ohio 1993).
“” Conversely, appellees contend that under Allenius, supra, the “West 57th” television program was the “cognizable event” which commenced the running of the R.”
Browning v. Burt, 1993 Ohio 178 (Ohio 1993).
“11(B)(1)—Negligent credentialing of a physician by hospital is not "medical diagnosis, care or treatment" within meaning of R.C. 2305.11—Action against hospital for bodily injury arising from negligent credentialing of physician subject to two-year limitations period in R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(B)(1)(2)(b) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(B)(1)(2000) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(B)(2) — 3 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(B)(2)(b) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(C) — 4 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(D) — 7 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(D)(1) — 4 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(D)(13) — 2 cases
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(D)(2) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(D)(3) — 46 cases
Browning v. Burt, 66 Ohio St. 3d 544 (Ohio 1993).
“” Conversely, appellees contend that under Allenius, supra, the “West 57th” television program was the “cognizable event” which commenced the running of the R.”
Browning v. Burt, 1993 Ohio 178 (Ohio 1993).
“11(B)(1)—Negligent credentialing of a physician by hospital is not "medical diagnosis, care or treatment" within meaning of R.C. 2305.11—Action against hospital for bodily injury arising from negligent credentialing of physician subject to two-year limitations period in R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(D)(3)(2000) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(D)(6) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(D)(7) — 1 case
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.11(a) — 5 cases
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.