(A)(1) Except as provided in division (A)(2) of this section, when a cause of action accrues against a person, if the person is out of the state, has absconded, or conceals self, the period of limitation for the commencement of the action as provided in sections 2305.04 to 2305.14, 1302.98, and 1304.35 of the Revised Code does not begin to run until the person comes into the state or while the person is so absconded or concealed. After the cause of action accrues if the person departs from the state, absconds, or conceals self, the time of the person's absence or concealment shall not be computed as any part of a period within which the action must be brought.
(2) Division (A)(1) of this section does not apply to statutes of repose, including, but not limited to, those contained in any of the following:
(a) Division (C) of section 2305.10 of the Revised Code;
(b) Division (C) or (D) of section 2305.113 of the Revised Code;
(c) Division (B) of section 2305.115 of the Revised Code;
(d) Division (B) or (C) of section 2305.117 of the Revised Code;
(B) When a person is imprisoned for the commission of any offense, the time of the person's imprisonment shall not be computed as any part of any period of limitation, as provided in section 2305.09, 2305.10, 2305.11, 2305.113, or 2305.14 of the Revised Code, within which any person must bring any action against the imprisoned person.
Last updated August 14, 2024 at 9:05 AM
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 135
cases (48 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Grover v. Bartsch, 866 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006).
Grover v. Bartsch, 866 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006). · cites it 52דThe court further concluded that Ohio’s tolling statute, R.C. 2305.15, was unconstitutional as applied to Bartsch.”
Elliot v. Durrani, 2021-Ohio-3055, 178 N.E.3d 977. · cites it 49ד{¶13} To answer that question now, we first turn to the plain language of R.C. 2305.15. R.C. 2305.15 is titled, “Tolling during defendant’s absence, concealment or imprisonment,” and states in pertinent part: (A) When a cause of action accrues against a person, if the person is…”
Elliot v. Durrani, 2022-Ohio-4190, 216 N.E.3d 641. · cites it 36דDurrani appealed, and we accepted jurisdiction over his lone proposition of law: “The absent defendant statute, R.C. 2305.15, does not toll the medical claim statute of repose in R.”
Dewine v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2020-Ohio-5517, 163 N.E.3d 614. · cites it 55דMatthew also argues that the trial court improperly added “intent” as an element to R.C. 2305.15 even though there is no distinction in the statute between absences “intended” to be permanent and those “intended” to be temporary.”
Lovejoy v. MacEk, 702 N.E.2d 457 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1997). · cites it 32דAppellee returned to Painesville to attend college in Ohio from August 1993 through January 11, 1995. Upon receiving appellee’s answers, appellant filed a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Civ.”
Saunders v. Choi, 466 N.E.2d 889 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 13דThe plaintiff-appellant submits that R.C. 2305.15, 2305.19 and Civ. R. 3(A) must be read in pari materia, meaning that the two statutes and the civil rule are to be construed together.”
Johnson v. Rhodes, 733 N.E.2d 1132 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 17דIn addition, we must determine if the application of R.C. 2305.15 against such an individual is unconstitutional for the reason that it constitutes an impermissible burden on interstate commerce under the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Bendix Autolite Corp.”
Wilson v. Durrani, 2021-Ohio-3226. · cites it 17ד113(C) and made other amendments to R.C. 2305.15. Id., citing 2002 Am.Sub.S.B.”
Mead Corp. v. Allendale Mut. Ins., 465 F. Supp. 355 (N.D. Ohio 1979). · cites it 10ד10 was tolled by the “saving clause” set out in Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 2305.15 (Page Supp.1975): When a cause of action accrues against a person, if he is out of the state, or has absconded, or conceals himself, the period of limitation for the commencement of the action as…”
Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enter., Inc., 486 U.S. 888 (1988). · cites it 4דThe Ohio tolling statute, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.15 (Supp. 1987), is on its face discriminatory because it applies only to out-of-state corporations.”
Stafford v. Columbus Bonding Ctr., 896 N.E.2d 191 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2008). · cites it 5דSpecifically, appellant contends in his fourth assignment of error that the trial court erred when it refused to rule on the issue of CBC’s vicarious liability for Callahan’s actions and, thus, whether Callahan’s leaving Ohio tolled the statute of limitations as to CBC pursuant…”
Hyde v. Reynoldsville Casket Co., 626 N.E.2d 75 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 12דAt the time of the accident, R.C. 2305.15, now 2305.15(A), tolled the limitations period for claims against out-of-state defendants by providing: “When a cause of action accrues against a person, if he is out of the state, or has absconded, or conceals himself, the period of…”
Elliot v. Durrani, 2021-Ohio-3055, 178 N.E.3d 977. “{¶13} To answer that question now, we first turn to the plain language of R.C. 2305.15. R.C. 2305.15 is titled, “Tolling during defendant’s absence, concealment or imprisonment,” and states in pertinent part: (A) When a cause of action accrues against a person, if the person is…”
Grover v. Bartsch, 866 N.E.2d 547 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006). “The court further concluded that Ohio’s tolling statute, R.C. 2305.15, was unconstitutional as applied to Bartsch.”
Elliot v. Durrani, 2022-Ohio-4190, 216 N.E.3d 641. “Durrani appealed, and we accepted jurisdiction over his lone proposition of law: “The absent defendant statute, R.C. 2305.15, does not toll the medical claim statute of repose in R.”
Dewine v. State Farm Ins. Co., 2020-Ohio-5517, 163 N.E.3d 614. “Matthew also argues that the trial court improperly added “intent” as an element to R.C. 2305.15 even though there is no distinction in the statute between absences “intended” to be permanent and those “intended” to be temporary.”
Wilson v. Durrani, 2021-Ohio-3226. “113(C) and made other amendments to R.C. 2305.15. Id., citing 2002 Am.Sub.S.B.”
Elliot v. Durrani, 2021-Ohio-3055, 178 N.E.3d 977. “{¶13} To answer that question now, we first turn to the plain language of R.C. 2305.15. R.C. 2305.15 is titled, “Tolling during defendant’s absence, concealment or imprisonment,” and states in pertinent part: (A) When a cause of action accrues against a person, if the person is…”
Stidham v. Durrani, No. 1:18-cv-00810, 2021 WL 2013024 (S.D. Ohio May 19, 2021).
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.