Legal Opinion

Fisher v. Ohio University

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1992No. 91-385PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The sole issue before this court is whether the Court of Claims’ grant of the university’s motion for summary judgment was proper. It is undisputed that the statute of limitations governing plaintiff’s claim is R.C. 2743.16(A). Fisher had two years from the date of the accident to file his complaint. The complaint was filed twenty days after the limitations period expired. Fisher’s action would be timely only if the time for filing was tolled pursuant to R.C. 2305.16. Former R.C. 2305.16 stated:

“Unless otherwise specially provided in sections 2305.04 to 2305.14, inclusive, and sections…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. De Gogorza v. . Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Eisenbach v. Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 1984

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Thomas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2011
  2. Livingston v. Diocese of ClevelandOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  3. Allen v. Unionmutual Stock Life Insurance Co. of AmericaDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 1997
  4. Bradford v. Surgical & Medical Neurology Associates Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1994
  5. State v. RiderOhio Court of Appeals · 2022

13 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