Agrawal v. Univ. of Cincinnati
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Brunner
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's breach of contract claim against the University of Cincinnati, finding that the lawsuit was filed beyond the applicable statute of limitations.
Excerpt
Where a plaintiff in a complaint in the Court of Claims for breach of contract alleges breaches more than two years before its filing but fails to allege any breaches within two years of its filing or that breaches are ongoing, there is a facial showing that the two-year statute of limitations for actions in the Court of Claims bars the action. Where the Court of Claims makes such a finding that the statute of limitations has run, it satisfies the requirements for dismissal pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failure to state a claim, but granting a motion to dismiss pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on facts not in the record such as being subject to a collective bargaining agreement is error. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
The trial court's judgment finding that appellant failed to carry his ultimate burden of demonstrating that the adverse employment action resulted from unlawful discrimination was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.