# Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati

> Ohio Supreme Court · May 31, 2006 · 109 Ohio St. 3d 491

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6788859

## Case

- **Full name:** Doe v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 31, 2006
- **Citations:** 109 Ohio St. 3d 491; 849 N.E.2d 268
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by French
- **Judges:** Connor, Donnell, French, Lanzinger, Moyer, Ninth, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Tenth, Whitmore
- **Cited by:** 160 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6788859

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding under discovery rule action against the diocese accrues as a matter of law when plaintiff knows that he is assaulted by a priest and the priest is an employee of the diocese
- holding that equitable estoppel is available as a shield “only in defense of a legal or equitable right or claim made in good faith,” not a sword
- holding that a defendant need not “come forward with further information about [its] wrongdoing” to avoid tolling the limitations period

## Opinion text

French, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 55} I respectfully dissent from Part VI of the majority opinion, which addresses Doe’s allegations under the Ohio Corrupt Activities Act. I agree with the dissent that R.C. 2923.34(E), which allows claims to be brought “within five years after the unlawful conduct terminates,” does not prohibit Doe’s claims that the appellants engaged in corrupt activities, apart from the sexual abuse, until 2002. However, I agree with the appellants that Doe has not pleaded those corrupt activities with particularity sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and for that reason, the corrupt-activities claims should be dismissed. See Manogg v. Spangler (Apr. 19,1994), Licking App. No. 93 CA106, 1994 WL 167933 ; Universal Coach, Inc. v. New York City Transit Auth., Inc. (1993), 90 Ohio App.3d 284, 291 , 629 N.E.2d 28 . In all other respects, I concur in the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6788859. Public record. Not legal advice.