Legal Opinion

Scholler v. Scholler

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 18, 1984No. 83-978PublishedCited by 94 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCelebrezze, C.J.

I

The initial question to be decided is whether summary judgment was properly granted in favor of Willoughby on the basis of the statute of limitations. In Skidmore & Hall v. Rottman (1983), 5 Ohio St. 3d 210, this court held:

*102“Under R.C. 2305.11(A), a cause of action for legal malpractice accrues and the statute of limitations commences to run when the client discovers, or, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have discovered, the resulting injury. * * *”

Neither the trial court nor the court of appeals had the benefit of our decision in Skidmore & Hall, supra. As such, no…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Savings Bank v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1880
  2. Pelham v. GriesheimerIllinois Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Goodson v. McDonough Power Equipment, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
  4. Whitehead v. General Telephone Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Coulson v. CoulsonOhio Supreme Court · 1983

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by94 opinions

  1. State v. BeyOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Flaherty v. WeinbergCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1985
  3. LeRoy v. Allen, Yurasek & MerklinOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Kelly B. ZANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
  5. Simon v. ZippersteinOhio Supreme Court · 1987

89 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