Cleveland Mobile Radio Sales, Inc. v. Verizon Wireless

113 Ohio St. 3d 394 (Ohio 2007) · Supreme Court of Ohio · May 23, 2007

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court considered whether claims under Ohio Revised Code § 4905.61 are subject to the one-year limitations period for actions upon a statute imposing a penalty or forfeiture, or the six-year period for statutory liabilities other than penalties or forfeitures. The court held that § 4905.61 is a penalty statute because its treble-damages provision primarily serves to deter and punish public-utility violations, and therefore the one-year limitations period applies. The court reversed the court of appeals.

Holdings

  1. R.C. 4905.61 is a statute for a penalty within the meaning of R.C. 2305.11(A), rather than a remedial statute under R.C. 2305.07.
  2. Claims brought under R.C. 4905.61 are subject to the one-year statute of limitations in R.C. 2305.11(A).

Questions Presented

  1. Whether claims under R.C. 4905.61 are actions upon a statute for a penalty or forfeiture subject to the one-year limitations period in R.C. 2305.11(A), or actions upon a statutory liability other than a penalty or forfeiture subject to the six-year period in R.C. 2305.07.
  2. Whether the treble-damages remedy in R.C. 4905.61 is primarily punitive or remedial for statute-of-limitations purposes.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (18)

  • Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc., 70 Ohio St. 3d 281, 638 N.E.2d 991 (1994)(followed)
  • Rosette v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 105 Ohio St. 3d 296, 825 N.E.2d 599 (2005)(distinguished)
  • Rice v. CertainTeed Corp., 84 Ohio St. 3d 417, 704 N.E.2d 1217 (1999)(followed)
  • Lake Ridge Academy v. Carney, 66 Ohio St. 3d 376, 613 N.E.2d 183 (1993)(followed)
  • Cook County v. United States ex rel. Chandler, 538 U.S. 119, 123 S. Ct. 1239, 155 L. Ed. 2d 247 (2003)(followed)
  • Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 105 S. Ct. 3346, 87 L. Ed. 2d 444 (1985)(followed)
  • Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 97 S. Ct. 690, 50 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1977)(followed)
  • Porter v. Household Fin. Corp. of Columbus, 385 F. Supp. 336 (S.D. Ohio 1974)(followed)
  • Lahke v. Cincinnati Bell, Inc., 1 Ohio App. 3d 114, 439 N.E.2d 928 (1981)(followed)
  • Usternal v. Gem Boat Serv., Inc., Ottawa App. No. 91-OT-051, 1992 WL 337600(followed)

Showing top 10 of 18.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court