¶1 dissenting. I am not unsympathetic to the plight of the plaintiffs. However, the defendant is free of any wrongdoing which contributed to plaintiffs’ unfortunate dilemma. In fact, plaintiffs’ counsel purposely delayed service on the defendant in the belief that defendant’s testimony in another case would not be tainted by service in the case sub judice. The defendant had a statutory right to have his case timely commenced. I find that others, counsel, the clerk or the court,-cannot alter defendant’s right.
2 Ohio App. 3d 333
442 N.E.2d 96
Scott v. Orlando
Decided July 31, 1981
Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1981-07-31
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1981-07-31
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently August 2025
9 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →