Legal Opinion
Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided March 21, 1951No. 32161 and 32162PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTaft, J.
If defendant is a corporation, then the judgments of the Court of Appeals must be affirmed.
Admittedly, defendant has not appointed any statutory agent upon whom service of process against defendant can be made in Ohio and defendant has not otherwise consented to service of summons upon it in actions brought in Ohio. An examination of the petitions in the instant cases discloses that neither petition states any cause of action in any way related to the business or activities of defendant in Ohio.
The question is not whether a plaintiff can maintain' a suit against a nonresident on a transitory…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Tauza v. . Susquehanna Coal Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
- International Harvester Co. of America v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1914
- United States v. Scophony Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Simon v. Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1915
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Perkins v. Benguet Consolidated Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Lsi Industries Inc. v. Hubbell Lighting, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000
- Augustus Blount v. Peerless Chemicals (p.r.) Inc., and Peerless Oil & Chemical Corp.,defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1963
- Wainscott v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1976
- White v. Shiller Chemicals, Inc.District Court, D. Rhode Island · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.