Legal Opinion

Goolsby v. Anderson Concrete Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 28, 1991No. 90-1073PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoyer, C.J.

The question presented is whether Goolsby’s first action was commenced, therefore allowing her to refile the action under the saving provisions of R.C. 2305.19. For the reasons which follow, we find that Goolsby’s first action was properly commenced.

Civ.R. 3(A) states in part:

“Commencement. A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court, if service is obtained within one year from such filing upon a named defendant * * *.”

One clear consequence of Civ.R. 3(A) is that it is not necessary to obtain service upon a defendant within the limitations period, which, in this case, was…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Peterson v. TeodosioOhio Supreme Court · 1973

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. Thomas v. FreemanOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Bell v. Midwestern Educational Services, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
  3. Moore v. Mt. Carmel Health Sys. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  4. Thomas v. FreemanOhio Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Sisk & Assoc., Inc. v. Commt. to Elect Timothy GrendellOhio Supreme Court · 2009

29 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