Legal Opinion
Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided May 23, 2007No. Nos. 2005-2299 and 2005-2302PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Connor, J.
{¶ 1} In this matter, we address whether claims brought pursuant to provisions of the Revised Code identified in R.C. 4905.61 are subject to the one-year statute of limitations set forth in R.C. 2305.11 or the six-year statute of limitations found in R.C. 2305.07. We conclude that R.C. 4905.61 is a penalty statute and that the one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.11 applies to it. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the court of appeals.
*395Relevant Background
{¶ 2} The appellees in these consolidated actions, Discount Cellular, Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc., and Tele-Trak…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Cook County v. United States Ex Rel. ChandlerSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- Lake Ridge Academy v. CarneyOhio Supreme Court · 1993
- Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Management Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Pratte v. StewartOhio Supreme Court · 2010
- In re Application of Columbus S. Power Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n, Local Union No. 33 v. Gene's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. BartholomewOhio Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. RobertsOhio Supreme Court · 2012
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.