Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marshall v. Ortega

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 19, 2000No. Nos. 98-2543 and 98-2610Published

1DissentCook, J.

The majority declares that the legislative intent of R.C. 2305.11(B) is “to afford malpractice claimants with the maximum amount of time in which to investigate their claims.” If this statement were true, there would be no statute of limitations. After all, a statute of limitations by its very nature limits the amount of time for litigants to investigate their claims prior to filing.

We are to construe statutes of limitations broadly so that cases may be decided on their merits. See Gregory v. Flowers (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 48, 61 O.O.2d 295, 290 N.E.2d 181, paragraph one of the syllabus; R.C.…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Gregory v. FlowersOhio Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Moore v. District 50 of United Mine Workers of America, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Franklin County, Civil Division1954

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

Powered by the Exa API