Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Davis
Nebraska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtDay, J.
This action was brought by plaintiff railroad company against Tom Davis, A. E. Roe, Ed F. Murphy, Ernest A. Michel, and Davis & Michel, a copartnership, to restrain the defendants and each of them from violating section 9737, Comp. St. 1922, commonly known as the anti-ambulance chasing statute. Personal service of summons- was had on defendants Davis, Roe and Murphy. The other defend*738ants were not served with process. Defendants Davis and Roe, each in his own behalf, filed a special appearance objecting to the jurisdiction of the court over his person, upon the ground that at the time of the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Chicago, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. SchendelCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
- McCloskey v. TobinSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
- Wabash Railway Co. v. PetersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
- Central Trust Co. of New York v. Milwaukee St. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1896
- Berlet v. WearyNebraska Supreme Court · 1903
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Tautges, Rerat & WelchNebraska Supreme Court · 1945
- National Ass'n v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1960
- Durst v. Tautges, Wilder & McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1930
- State ex rel. Sorensen v. Ak-Sar-Ben Exposition Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1931
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co v. AndrewsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1949
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.