Legal Opinion

Couts v. Rose

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided January 11, 1950No. 31816PublishedCited by 74 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.

The answer to the question made in this case depends upon the construction and application to be given Sections 11224-1, 11228 and 6308-1 et seq., General Code. Specifically, the question is whether a person injured in an automobile collision occurring in this state is obliged to institute an action for his injury against a nonresident defendant and secure service through Section 6308-1 et seq., General Code, within the time limitation provided by Section 11224-1, General Code, or may he, under favor of the provisions of Section 11228, General Code, so proceed to institute his action through…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bode v. FlynnWisconsin Supreme Court · 1934
  2. Anthes v. AnthesIdaho Supreme Court · 1912
  3. Commonwealth Loan Co. v. FirestineOhio Supreme Court · 1947
  4. Keith-O'Brien Co. v. SnyderUtah Supreme Court · 1917

3Cited by74 opinions

  1. Cater v. City of ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Cater v. ClevelandOhio Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Johnson's Markets, Inc. v. New Carlisle Department of HealthOhio Supreme Court · 1991
  4. Seeley v. Expert, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  5. United Telephone Co. v. LimbachOhio Supreme Court · 1994

69 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API