Lundy v. Lederle Laboratories, Division of American Cyanamid Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
Plaintiffs, Roy Lee Lundy and his wife Janet Lundy, appeal from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed their complaint upon grounds of the statute of limitations. They raise a single assignment of error as follows:
“The trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the grounds that this action is time-barred by R.C. 2305.11(A).”
For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part and reverse in part.
Because this appeal concerns the propriety of the trial court’s ruling on a Civ. R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, we accept the factual allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint as true.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
- O'Stricker v. Jim Walter Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
- Hershberger v. Akron City HospitalOhio Supreme Court · 1987
3Cited by7 opinions
- Joseph R. Graham v. American Cyanamid Company, Roy Lee Lundy v. American Cyanamid CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Prosen v. DimoraOhio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Meeker v. American Torque Rod of Ohio, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1992
- Yacub v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1998
- Hines v. Univ. of AkronOhio Court of Appeals · 2013
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.