Davis v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
994 N.E.2d 905
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Davis was criminally convicted in 1998 for possession and trafficking charges, later challenged; appellate history included suppression issues.
- In 2006 his convictions were reversed on certain grounds; pleads were voided by subsequent appellate decisions.
- Davis filed a wrongful imprisonment action in 2008 against county officials, city officers, and state actors; federal court dismissed federal claims in 2010.
- Davis refiled in 2011 adding malicious prosecution and civil conspiracy claims against additional local officials and prosecutors.
- Trial court dismissed these claims as time-barred, finding the defendants either improper parties or claims barred by statutes of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State of Ohio was properly a party | Davis named State in amended complaint; argues state must be party. | State and AG arguments were dismissed as improper parties for wrongful imprisonment claims. | State appellate participation recognized; dismissal of Rogers harmless; state as party not reversed. |
| Whether Nourse, Moody, and Springfield were improperly retained | These defendants should remain for all claims, not only wrongful imprisonment. | Court properly dismissed them for all three claims as time-barred or improper. | They were properly dismissed for all claims; wrongful imprisonment concern only was retained as to some parties. |
| Whether civil conspiracy and malicious prosecution claims are time-barred | Liability arises from underlying wrongful acts; limitations should not bar conspiracy. | Conspiracy limited by underlying action; accrual and accrual date reset by discovery and dismissal. | Civil conspiracy barred by two-year/longer statute; malicious prosecution barred by one-year/related periods. |
| What statute of limitations governs the claims against political subdivisions and employees | Underlying tort limits control; deterrence and accrual from 2006 decision. | R.C. 2744.04(A) two-year period applies to political subdivisions and employees; overrides general tort limits. | R.C. 2744.04(A) applies to political subdivisions and employees; underlying trespass and invasion claims barred; malicious prosecution barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Froehlich v. Ohio Dept. Of Mental Health, 114 Ohio St.3d 286 (Ohio 2007) (malicious prosecution elements and accrual concepts cited)
- Williams v. Aetna Fin. Co., 83 Ohio St.3d 464 (Ohio 1998) (lack of probable cause and termination in favor principles)
- Read v. Fairview Park, 146 Ohio App.3d 15 (8th Dist.2001) (R.C. 2744.04(A) two-year limitations for political subdivisions)
- Bojac Corp. v. Kutevac, 64 Ohio App.3d 368 (11th Dist.1990) (two-year vs four-year limitation distinctions for actions against subdivisions)
- Nadra v. Mbah, 2008-Ohio-3918 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (statutory interpretation on limitations for subdivision-related claims)