Live Breaking News & Updates on Tenth appellate district
Stay updated with breaking news from Tenth appellate district. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Vacating an Arbitration Award- The Bullet Point: Ohio’s Arbitration Act strongly favors arbitration. Because of this, Ohio’s Arbitration Act limits the jurisdiction of a court...
Ohio- Non-Signatory Compelling Arbitration Duff v. Christopher, 11th Dist. Lake, No. 2023-Ohio-349. In this appeal, the Eleventh Appellate District affirmed in part and...
In this discretionary appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court outlined when and in what circumstances an equitable lien may arise. The Bullet Point: A lien is “‘a hold or claim...
Ohio- Assignee of Contract- Auto Loan, Inc. v. Sisler, 11th Dist. Portage No. 2022-Ohio-3282. In this appeal, the Eleventh Appellate District reversed the trial co...
In this appeal, the Tenth Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision, agreeing that although the acknowledgment clause erroneously stated the previous sheriff's name, the clause substantially complied...
Is The TCPA Constitutional? - The Bullet Point: A Commercial Law Bulletin | McGlinchey Stafford jdsupra.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from jdsupra.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
The Bullet Point: An Ohio Commercial Law Bulletin Statute of Repose Wilson v. Durrani, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-6827 In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower court’s decision, determining that the plaintiffs’ claims were time-barred because Ohio’s saving statute does not create an exception to a true statute of repose. The Bullet Point: Statutes of limitations establish a time limit for bringing a lawsuit based on the date when the plaintiff’s claim accrued. Statutes of repose bar an action that is brought after a specified period of time since the defendant acted, regardless of whether or not the plaintiff has yet to be injured by the defendant’s actions. Simply stated, both statutes of limitations and statutes of repose limit the period of time in which a plaintiff may file an action. On the other hand, saving statutes extend that period of time. Under Ohio’s saving statute, a plaintiff is afforded a limited period of time in which to refile a dismissed claim that would otherwise be time-barred. R.C. 2305.19(A). However, Ohio’s saving statute does not toll the statute of limitations, and it does not operate as a statute of limitations itself. In this matter, the Court analyzed the interplay between the statute of limitations, statute of repose, and saving statute and determined the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claims against the defendant were time-barred. The Court noted that although the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims, they could not take advantage of the one-year filing period provided by the saving statute as their claims were dismissed after the statute of repose had already passed. The Court explained that the statute under which the plaintiffs brought their claims contains “a true statute of repose that, except as expressly stated [in the statute], clearly and unambiguously precludes the commencement” of a medical claim after the specified period of time. As the statute under which the plaintiffs brought their claims does not contain an express exception for application of the saving statute, the Court determined the Ohio General Assembly did not intend for the savings statute to apply. As such, the expiration of the statute of repose precluded the plaintiffs from using the saving statute to commence their actions against the defendant.