Legal Opinion

Walters v. Royer

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided February 24, 2011No. Case 3:10 CV 1526Published

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JACK ZOUHARY, District Judge.

Introduction

Before the Court is Defendant George Royer’s (“Royer”) Motion for Summary Judgment, alleging Plaintiff Paul Walters’ (“Walters”) malpractice claim is time-barred as a matter of law (Doc. No. 6). Walters’ Complaint (Doc. No. 1) alleges Royer, an Ohio-licensed attorney at law, is liable to Walters for legal malpractice in connection with Royer’s failure to timely prosecute several patent applications for Walters. Royer argues Walters’ claim is not timely under Ohio’s one-year statute of limitations (Doc. No. 4). This Court has…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & GriswoldOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  4. Omni-Food & Fashion, Inc. v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Brown v. JohnstoneOhio Court of Appeals · 1982

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API