Legal Opinion

Baker v. McKnight

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided April 13, 1983No. 82-394PublishedCited by 47 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

The instant cause affords us the opportunity to reconsider our decision in the Barnhart case, supra. The issue in Barnhart, which we decided in the negative, was whether a complaint in negligence which designated as a sole defendant one who died after the cause of action accrued but before the complaint was filed had met the requirements of the applicable statute of limitations and commenced an action pursuant to Civ. R. 3(A), so that such complaint could be amended to substitute an administrator of the deceased defendant’s estate for the original defendant after the limitations period has…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
  2. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  4. Peterson v. TeodosioOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  5. Thompson v. PeckSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1935

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

3Cited by47 opinions

  1. Vaughn v. SpeakerIllinois Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Patterson v. V & M Auto BodyOhio Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Allied Erecting & Dismantling Co. v. City of YoungstownOhio Court of Appeals · 2002
  4. Chalmers v. HCR Manorcare, Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2017
  5. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. BumphusOhio Court of Appeals · 2011

42 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