A civil action brought pursuant to division (A) of section 2307.60 of the Revised Code when the person filing the action is injured in person or property by a violation of division (B), (D), or (E) of section 2913.49 of the Revised Code shall be commenced within five years from the date on which the identity of the offender was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2024 · leading case: Funk v. Rent-All Mart, Inc., 742 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio 2001).
Funk v. Rent-All Mart, Inc., 742 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 26דThe Defendants have moved for dismissal of the action on the basis that it is untimely under Ohio Rev.Code § 2305.112, which requires that such an action be brought within one year.”
Funk v. Rent-All Mart, Inc., 2001 Ohio 270 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 26דThe Defendants have moved for dismissal of the action on the basis that it is untimely under Ohio Rev.Code § 2305.112, which requires that such an action be brought within one year.”
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 707 N.E.2d 1107 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 5ד103,146 Ohio Laws, Part I, 756-757, states: “That new sections 2305.112 and 2745.01 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows: “Sec.”
Johnson v. BP Chemicals, Inc., 1999 Ohio 267 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 5ד103, 146 Ohio Laws, Part I, 756-757, states: “That new sections 2305.112 and 2745.01 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows: 4 January Term, 1999 “Sec.”
Keith v. Spectrum Sportswear, Inc., 696 N.E.2d 637 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4דAppellees moved to dismiss the case for the reason that Keith failed to file her complaint within the one-year statute of limitations provided in R.C. 2305.112. The lower court granted this motion and Keith appeals this decision.”
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024). “”); R.C. 2305.112 (a civil action for identity fraud “shall be commenced within five years from the date on which the identity of the offender was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered”); R.”
Weidman v. Hildebrandt, 2024 Ohio 2931 (Ohio 2024). · cites it 2ד”); R.C. 2305.112 (a civil action for identity fraud “shall be commenced within five years from the date on which the identity of the offender was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered”); R.”
Christian v. Scotts Co., 710 N.E.2d 1182 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “R.C. 2305.112(A). 3 Appellant’s complaint alleged that appellee required him to return to work with the same chemicals that caused his keratoderma outbreak.”
Peters v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 2020 Ohio 369 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “See R.C. 2305.112(D)(2) (The statute of limitations commences when the patient did or with reasonable care and diligence should have discovered the foreign object.”
Mullins v. Rio Algom, Inc., 689 N.E.2d 50 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 2ד01 of the Ohio Revised Code unconstitutional under state law thereby rendering Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.112 null and void?” Moyer, C.”
Tichon v. Wright Tool & Forge, 2012 Ohio 3147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4דAlthough R.C. 2305.112 originally set forth a one year statute of limitations for employer intentional tort claims, R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.112(A) — 3 cases
Funk v. Rent-All Mart, Inc., 742 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio 2001). “The Defendants have moved for dismissal of the action on the basis that it is untimely under Ohio Rev.Code § 2305.112, which requires that such an action be brought within one year.”
Funk v. Rent-All Mart, Inc., 2001 Ohio 270 (Ohio 2001). “The Defendants have moved for dismissal of the action on the basis that it is untimely under Ohio Rev.Code § 2305.112, which requires that such an action be brought within one year.”
Christian v. Scotts Co., 710 N.E.2d 1182 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998). “R.C. 2305.112(A). 3 Appellant’s complaint alleged that appellee required him to return to work with the same chemicals that caused his keratoderma outbreak.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.112(D)(2) — 1 case
Peters v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 2020 Ohio 369 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020). “See R.C. 2305.112(D)(2) (The statute of limitations commences when the patient did or with reasonable care and diligence should have discovered the foreign object.”
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.