Wainscott v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.
I
The appellant maintains that the question of what corporate activities in this state' are sufficient to support a finding, that a foreign corporation has the minimum contacts with Ohio necessary to sustain personal jurisdiction therein, is a substantive constitutional question; and, that the personal service of process provisions of Civ. R. 4.2(6) cannot be interpreted tó abridge substantive constitutional rights. Appellant maintains further that,' under the facts existing in the present-case, the decision of the Court of Appeals, subjecting appellant to the in personam jurisdiction of the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Pennoyer v. NeffSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bank of Augusta v. EarleSupreme Court of the United States · 1839
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- U.S. Sprint Communications Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Mr. K's Foods, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1994
- Lsi Industries Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Nina Pittock, Lisa Pittock and Ronald Pittock v. Otis Elevator Company Bob Stupak Las Vegans Vegas World CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1993
- Ohio State Tie & Timber, Inc. v. Paris Lumber Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1982
- Barile v. University of VirginiaOhio Court of Appeals · 1981
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.