Legal Opinion

Hitchcock v. Conklin

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 21, 1995No. 95APE06-815PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Lazarus, Judge.

This case presents the question of whether an action against a veterinarian arising from the veterinarian’s professional conduct is subject to the one-year statute of limitations for “malpractice” in R.C. 2305.11. We hold that it is not.

Plaintiffs-appellants, Cheryl and Kipp Hitchcock, appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas dismissing their action against defendant-appellee, Ronald K. Conklin, D.V.M., arising from the death of appellants’ two dogs. On February 18, 1993, appellants took one of their dogs to appellee, who examined the dog. The dog…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Investors REIT One v. JacobsOhio Supreme Court · 1989
  2. Hocking Conservancy District v. Dodson-Lindblom Associates, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Lombard v. Good Samaritan Medical CenterOhio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Thompson v. Community Mental Health Centers of Warren County, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Whitt v. Columbus Cooperative EnterprisesOhio Supreme Court · 1980

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

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Lawrence v. Big Creek Veterinary Hosp., 2006-G-2737 (9-7-2007)Ohio Court of Appeals · 2007

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

Powered by the Exa API