Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati

Supreme Court of Ohio · Decided 2006-05-31

Cited by 167 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

French, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part. {¶ 55} I respectfully dissent from Part VI of the majority opinion, which addresses Doe’s allegations under the Ohio Corrupt Activities Act. I agree with the dissent that R.C. 2923.34(E), which allows claims to be brought “within five years after the unlawful conduct terminates,” does not prohibit Doe’s claims that the app…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.