Masters v. Marsh

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that the discovery rule provided for under Ohio Rev. Code § 2305.09(D
• holding that “failure to include general negligence claims under the discovery rule set out in R.C. 2305.09” showed the General Assembly’s intent to not extend the rule to those claims
• holding that “failure to include general negligence claims under the discovery rule set out in R.C. 2305.09” showed the General Assembly’s intent to not extend the rule to those claims
• holding that “failure to include general negligence claims under the discovery rule set out in R.C. 2305.09” showed the General 24 January Term, 2024 Assembly’s intent to not extend the rule to those claims
• finding that four-year limitations period does not begin to run on claims presented in fraud until complainants have discovered, or should have discovered the claimed fraud.
• Interpreting R.C. 2305.09(D): “[the defendant] served as accountants for [the trusts] through at least part of 1975. The accountants prepared annual audits for the years 1969 through 1974 ... the trusts’ causes of action commenced no later than 1975.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).