Legal Opinion

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Davis

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided February 26, 1924No. 22626PublishedCited by 6 opinions

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

  1. Chicago, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. v. SchendelCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1923
  2. McCloskey v. TobinSupreme Court of the United States · 1920
  3. Wabash Railway Co. v. PetersonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1919
  4. Central Trust Co. of New York v. Milwaukee St. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1896
  5. Berlet v. WearyNebraska Supreme Court · 1903

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Johnson v. Tautges, Rerat & WelchNebraska Supreme Court · 1945
  2. National Ass'n v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Virginia · 1960
  3. Durst v. Tautges, Wilder & McDonaldCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1930
  4. State ex rel. Sorensen v. Ak-Sar-Ben Exposition Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co v. AndrewsAppellate Court of Illinois · 1949

1 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