Andolsek v. Hurley

Ohio Ct. App.June 25, 2018No. 2017-L-108Cited 1 time

Defendant WinNelson, Sweet, and Hurley

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Rice
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

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The trial court's summary judgment in favor of defendant Hurley was affirmed. The court found that plaintiff's legal malpractice claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations, which accrued when plaintiff filed a grievance against Hurley in November 2015, not when she later discovered the inventory filing issue in April 2016.

Excerpt

MALPRACTICE - legal where appellant discharged her attorney by letter in July 2015 and a cognizable event occurred in November 2015 when she signed a grievance against her attorney with Disciplinary Counsel, appellant's cause of action accrued and the statute of limitations began to run in November 2015 and the statute of limitations expired in November 2016 since appellant did not file her complaint until January 2017, the trial couirt did not err in finding that appellant's claim was time-barred and in granting Hurley's motion for summary judgment.

What This Ruling Means

# Andolsek v. Hurley: Case Summary ## What Happened A woman hired an attorney named Hurley to represent her in an employment matter. She later believed the attorney made mistakes handling her case and wanted to sue for poor legal representation (legal malpractice). However, there was a delay between when she first realized there might be a problem and when she actually filed her lawsuit. ## What the Court Decided The court ruled against the woman. It said her lawsuit came too late. Under Ohio law, people have only one year from when they discover a problem to file a malpractice claim. The court determined her one-year deadline started when she filed a formal complaint against the attorney in November 2015. Since she didn't file her lawsuit until January 2017—more than a year later—the case was dismissed as time-barred. ## Why This Matters for Workers This case shows that timing is critical when suing professionals like attorneys. If you believe your lawyer mishandled your employment case, you must act quickly. Don't wait too long to file a complaint, or you may lose your right to pursue the claim entirely, even if the lawyer genuinely made mistakes.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Breach of Contract cases

9th CircuitNov 2000

Mixed Result

Umland v. PLANCO Financial Services, Inc.

3rd CircuitSep 2008

Defendant Win

Papp v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Ohio Ct. App.Jun 2026

Defendant Win

Yormick v. King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., L.L.C.

Ohio Ct. App.May 2026

Plaintiff Win

State v. Myers

Ohio Ct. App.Apr 2026

Remanded

Read Full Opinion More Nelson, Sweet, and Hurley Rulings All Rulings

Browse Related

More legal services employer cases

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.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

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.