Legal Opinion

Thompson v. Horvath

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided June 7, 1967No. 40489PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

The principal question presented is whether Section 2305.15, Revised Code, operates in the case at bar so as to preclude the defendant domestic corporation from successfully asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.

Section 2305.15, Revised Code, reads as follows:

“When a cause of action accrues against a person, if he is out of the state, or has absconded, or conceals himself, the period of limitation for the commencement of the action as provided in Sections 2305.04 to 2305.14, inclusive, and Sections 1302.98 and 1304.29 of the Revised Code, does not begin to run until he comes into…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Couts v. RoseOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  2. Commonwealth Loan Co. v. FirestineOhio Supreme Court · 1947
  3. Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. McAllisterOhio Supreme Court · 1936

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Seeley v. Expert, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Fullmer v. Sloan's Sporting Goods Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967
  3. Ohio Brass Company v. Allied Products CorporationDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1972
  4. Partis v. Miller Equipment Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1970
  5. Harry Partis v. Miller Equipment Co., Inc., and North & Judd Manufacturing Co., and R. H. Buhrke Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1971

4 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