Legal Opinion

Mihalcin v. Hocking College, Unpublished Decision (3-20-2000)

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 20, 2000No. 99CA32Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

R.C. 2305.19, also known as the "savings statute," enables a plaintiff to re-file an otherwise time-barred action within one year after a dismissal without prejudice. Appellant John D. Mihalcin, II, invoked R.C. 2305.19 to re-file a previously-dismissed complaint. He later dismissed the re-filed complaint voluntarily, without prejudice, nearly two years after the statute of limitations expired. The appellant re-filed the action yet a third time, attempting to invoke the savings statute again. The issue in this case is whether the appellant may use the savings…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Dresher v. BurtOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Mitseff v. WheelerOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Bostic v. ConnorOhio Supreme Court · 1988
  5. Ohio State Board of Pharmacy v. FrantzOhio Supreme Court · 1990

21 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