underscores the importance of finality of judgments of conviction. ‘ “Public policy dictates that there be an end of litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest, and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled as between the parties.” * * * “It is a rule of fundamental and substantial justice * * ’ ” Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d at 95, 671 N.E.2d 233, quoting Baldwin v. Traveling Men’s Assn. (1931), 283 U.S. 522, 525, 51 S.Ct. 517, 75 L.Ed. 1244, and Hart Steel Co. v. RR. Supply Co. (1917), 244 U.S. 294, 299, 37 S.Ct. 506, 61 L.Ed. 1148. Of course, the same public policy favoring finality of judgments is recognized in the federal system. Waifersong Ltd., Inc. v. Classic Music Vending (C.A.6, 1992), 976 . 106, 65 N.E. 865 (<HOLDING>). {¶ 47} Some questions raised by Blackwell do
holding that whether in contract or tort all bodilyinjury cases are covered by the same statute of limitations holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations holding that broad language releasing all claims whether in contract tort or otherwise necessarily included a bad faith claim holding that covered employee stands in the same position as an insured in a private insurance contract holding that whether in tort or contract all malpractice claims are covered by the same statute of limitations