Common Contracts
9 similar Tolling Agreement contracts
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • April 21st, 2024
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • April 5th, 2023
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • July 1st, 2022
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • June 16th, 2022
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • October 6th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • June 30th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • June 30th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • June 30th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
For Whom the Agreement Tolls: Tolling Agreements May Not Toll Claims Against Non-Signatory DefendantsTolling Agreement • June 30th, 2021
In Seniah Corp. v. Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP, Ohio’s Fifth District Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a defendant attorney because the legal malpractice claims at issue—which are subject to a one-year statute of limitations—were time-barred. 5th Dist. Stark No. 2017CA00109, 2018-
