Legal Opinion

Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Management Co.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided September 21, 1994No. 92-2549PublishedCited by 86 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPfeifer, J.

We hold that R.C. 4112.99 is a remedial statute, and is thus subject to R.C. 2305.07’s six-year statute of limitations.

R.C. 4112.99 does not contain an explicit statute of limitations. It reads in full:

“Whoever violates this chapter is subject to a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief.”

Since R.C. 4112.99 does not contain its own statute of limitations, we must look to other sections of the Revised Code for the appropriate limitations period. R.C. 2305.07 states, in relevant part, that “an action upon * * * a liability created by statute other than a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Elek v. Huntington National BankOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  3. State, Ex Rel. v. Ind. Com.Ohio Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by86 opinions

  1. Regina McCormick v. Miami UniversityCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2012
  2. Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2000
  3. Cassandra Thompson v. Fresh Products, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
  4. Rice v. CertainTeed Corp.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Wilson v. Durrani (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020

81 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