Mentor Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Mohat
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Mentor Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Mohat, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio1421.] NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published. SLIP OPINION NO. 2011-OHIO-1421 MENTOR EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. MOHAT ET AL. [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as Mentor Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Mohat, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-1421.] Certified question of state law dismissed as having been improvidently accepted. (No. 2010-0951 Submitted February 16, 2011 Decided March 30, 2011.) ON ORDER from the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No. 1:09 CV 688. __________________ {¶ 1} On May 27, 2010, the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, certified the following question of state law to this court: Whether, under Ohio law an action filed on behalf of a decedent before an estate is legally established by someone who is not a legally appointed administrator or personal representative (i.e., is without the capacity to sue on the decedent s behalf), are barred by the statute of limitations if later, after the running of the statute of limitations but before resolution of the claims, an estate SUPREME COURT OF OHIO is legally established and an administrator or personal representative is duly appointed and named in the Complaint or whether the formation of the estate and the appointment of the administrator relates back to the original filing of the claims? 126 Ohio St.3d 1542, 2010-Ohio-3855, 932 N.E.2d 337. On February 16, 2011, we heard oral argument in this cause. {¶ 2} Sua sponte, we now conclude that the certified question of state law was improvidently accepted for review. Accordingly, this cause is dismissed. O CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O DONNELL, LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. __________________ Britton, Smith, Peters & Kalail Co., L.P.A., David Kane Smith, Krista Keim, and Lindsay Ferg Gingo, for petitioners. Kenneth D. Myers, for respondents. Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., and Paul W. Flowers; and Elk & Elk Co., Ltd., and Peter D. Traska, in support of respondents for amicus curiae Ohio Association for Justice. Zagrans Law Firm, L.L.C., and Eric H. Zagrans, in support of respondents for amicus curiae Nikki C. Hardy. ______________________ 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
