Legal Opinion
Howard v. Allen
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 17, 1972No. 71-683PublishedCited by 42 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The prime issue before this court is: Does R. C. 2305.19, the Ohio saving clause, apply only to actions “commenced or attempted to be commenced” in the state of Ohio? We hold that it does and that it is not applicable to actions commenced or attempted to be commenced in foreign states.
R. C. 2305.19, provides, in pertinent part:
“In an action commenced, or attempted to be commenced # * * if the plaintiff fails otherwise than upon the merits, and the time limited for the commencement of such action at the date of * * * failure has expired, the *133plaintiff * * * may commence a new action within one…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Chase Securities Corp. v. DonaldsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1953
- McKnett v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1934
- Great Western Telegraph Co. v. PurdySupreme Court of the United States · 1896
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by42 opinions
- Angela M. Phelps v. John D. McClellanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Helen Charash v. Oberlin CollegeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Vaccariello v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2002
- Erwin v. BryanOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- Taylor v. First Resolution Invest. Corp. (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2016
37 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.