Legal Opinion

Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 25, 1984No. 83-1680PublishedCited by 413 opinions

1Per curiam

I

The first issue presented is whether appellants’ cause of action as set forth in count one of their complaint is time-barred. For the reasons that follow, this court holds that this action was not timely filed pursuant to the time limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.09(B).

It is undisputed that the applicable statute of limitations as to count one of the complaint is contained in R.C. 2305.09. This section provides in part:

“An action for any of the following causes shall be brought within four years after the cause thereof accrued:

{(* * *

“(B) For the recovery of personal property, or for…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Peterson v. TeodosioOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Hummel v. HummelOhio Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Kunz v. Buckeye Union Ins.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Ervin v. GarnerOhio Supreme Court · 1971
  5. Schofield v. Cleveland Trust Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1948

3Cited by413 opinions

  1. Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive HealthSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
  2. Johnson v. Microsoft Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 2005
  3. Love v. City of Port ClintonOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  4. Wuliger v. Manufacturers Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2009
  5. Doe v. First United Methodist ChurchOhio Supreme Court · 1994

408 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