What Is a Year? The Ohio Supreme Court Decides How to Count a Year Under Ohio’s Savings Statute

The Ohio Supreme Court applied its rules of statutory interpretation and application of common sense in Sauter v. Integrity Cycles, LLC, 2026-Ohio-88, to determine the meaning of “within one year” under O.R.C. §2305.19, Ohio’s Saving Statute. The Court, relying heavily on common usage, held that a plaintiff must refile his case under O.R.C. §2305.19 “by the anniversary” of the date it was dismissed. This interpretation of “one year,” however, was not unanimous.

The Road to the Ohio Supreme Court

Sauter sued Integrity Cycles and an individual defendant as a result of a 2018 motorcycle accident. Sauter voluntarily dismissed his case on January 5, 2022, and later refiled on January 6, 2023, relying on Ohio’s Savings Statute, which allows a plaintiff to “commence a new action within one year” after a voluntary dismissal. The trial court, relying on Tenth District precedent in Shue v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2017-Ohio-443, dismissed the refiled complaint, reasoning that the statute requires refiling by the anniversary date, which it pegged as January 5, 2023. The Tenth District Court of Appeals disagreed, overturned Shue, and allowed the complaint to be refiled until January 6, 2023, by applying the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Cox v. Dayton Public Schools, 2016-Ohio-5505. Integrity Cycles appealed, and the Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case to settle the meaning of “within one year.”

The Majority’s Calendar‑Date Year

Justice Shanahan’s majority opinion treats the Savings Statute as a straightforward time‑computation problem. It started out by asking whether “one year” actually means “within one year” and said answering that question requires the “application of common sense and time-computation statutes.” The majority applied three statutes: O.R.C. §1.14, which provides that courts are to exclude the first day and include the last; O.R.C. §1.44(B), which defines a year as twelve consecutive months; and O.R.C. §1.45, which states a period counted in months ends on the same numerical day in the concluding month. Excluding January 5, 2022, the clock starts on January 6, 2022. Counting one calendar year brings the end date to January 5, 2023—the day before Sauter refiled. In the majority’s opinion, everyday speech supports this view: “if we agree to meet a year from September 15, we agree to meet on September 15, not September 16”. Thus, a litigant must refile by the anniversary date.

The Dissent’s Twelve‑Month Year

Chief Justice Kennedy’s dissent found a different meaning to “one year.” Under R.C. §1.14, the first day is excluded, so the count begins the day after the dismissal. O.R.C. §1.45 then instructs that the period ends on the same numerical day in the twelfth month. In Sauter’s case, when counting from January 6, 2022, the end of the twelve consecutive months lands on January 6, 2023, not January 5. It also adheres to Cox, which allowed an extra day when computing months under a similar statute.

Why It Matters

The clash illustrates how a single, seemingly simple phrase—“within one year”—can produce two plausible readings. The majority measured a year by the calendar and pegged the deadline to the anniversary date. It relied heavily on common, everyday usage to arrive at its meaning. Conversely, the dissent measures a year as twelve full months and gives litigants an additional day because the clock starts the day after the triggering event. Both interpretations rely on the same statutory provisions but emphasize different components of them. The majority focuses on ordinary speech and the plain meaning of “within one year,” while the dissent emphasizes the statutory definition of a year and the necessity of excluding the first day.

Practical Implications

Given the majority’s opinion, litigants must refile by the anniversary date, not the day after. Filing one day late—no matter how reasonable the other interpretation of “one year” may be—will result in dismissal. Lawyers should adjust their calendaring practices accordingly. The case also hints at future battles over Cox. Although the majority distinguished Cox, it pointedly questioned its reasoning, noting that it “was wrong.” That suggests the Court may revisit similar issues in the future. In the meantime, the takeaway is clear: When Ohio law says “within one year,” assume the deadline is the anniversary date and do not rely on an extra day.

If you have any questions about the application of the Ohio Supreme Court’s rules of statutory interpretation and common sense, please contact Patrick A. Walsh or any member of the Frantz Ward Litigation practice group.