Legal Opinion
Gray v. Austin
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided January 27, 1992No. 12636PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Grady, Judge.
Plaintiff, Arthur Gray, filed a complaint against defendant Richard Austin and others, alleging legal malpractice. The trial court found that Gray’s cause of action was barred by the relevant statute of limitations, R.C. 2305.11(A), and dismissed the complaint by summary judgment. Gray appeals.
Gray’s complaint alleged legal malpractice in attorney Austin’s representation of him as a plaintiff in a civil action before the United States District Court. That action was commenced in March 1984 and was terminated by summary judgment on March 28, 1985. The judgment was appealed to the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Zimmie v. Calfee, Halter & GriswoldOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Lewis I. Abramson World Coin Partners v. Joel F. BrownsteinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Robert Capo, Tadeusz Snacki, A/K/A "Ted Snacki", Walter SnackiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Tesar v. HallasDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1990
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lovejoy v. MacEkOhio Court of Appeals · 1997
- Noonan v. RogersOhio Court of Appeals · 1994
- Permanent General Ins. Cos., Inc. v. DresslerOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
- Ellis v. AndersonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1995
- Ward v. GraueOhio Court of Appeals · 2013