Legal Opinion
Olynyk v. Scoles
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 27, 2007No. Nos. 2006-0235 and 2006-0310PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.
{¶ 1} This appeal requires us to construe the “double-dismissal rule” of Civ.R. 41(A)(1). For the reasons that follow, we hold that the double-dismissal rule is *57not implicated in the circumstances of this case, and we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Relevant Background
{¶ 2} In January 1997, plaintiff-appellee, Sarah Anastasia Olynyk, who was at that time a minor, filed, by and through her parents, a medical-negligence complaint in the Court of Common Pleas for Cuyahoga County against a number of defendants. In October 1997, Olynyk and her parents moved the trial court to dismiss…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Frysinger v. LeechOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Poloron Products, Inc. (With Substitution Applied for by Dynamark Corporation, Assignee) v. Lybrand Ross Bros. & Montgomery, and Third-Party v. Poloron Products of Indiana, Inc., Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1976
- Chadwick v. Barba Lou, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
- EMC Mortgage Corp. v. JenkinsOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
- Graham v. PavariniOhio Court of Appeals · 1983
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. GullottaOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State ex rel. Jackson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- State Ex Rel. Dillard Department Stores v. RyanOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Sisk & Assoc., Inc. v. Commt. to Elect Timothy GrendellOhio Supreme Court · 2009
- Martin v. WegmanOhio Court of Appeals · 2019
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.