Legal Opinion
Kraut v. Cleveland Ry. Co.
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided December 16, 1936No. 26052PublishedCited by 34 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.
Does a judgment denying recovery in the wife’s action for personal injuries constitute a bar to the husband’s action for loss of services?
The rule of res judicata is laid down in State v. Cincinnati Tin & Japan Co., 66 Ohio St., 182, 64 N. E., 68, in these words: “To constitute the record of an action h bar of res adjudicata it must appear in the record itself that the party against whom it is offered was a party or privy in blood or estate to the former action, or assisted in the prosecution or defense thereof for some benefit of his own.”
It was held in B. & O. Rd. Co. v. Glenn, 66 Ohio St.,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Madden's CaseMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1916
- Mulvey v. City of BostonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Womach v. City of St. JosephSupreme Court of Missouri · 1907
- Erickson v. BuckleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1918
- Hey v. PrimeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by34 opinions
- Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
- Tomlinson v. SkolnikOhio Supreme Court · 1989
- Mitchell v. White Motor Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1974
- Lansburgh & Bro. v. ClarkCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Choctaw, Inc. v. WichnerMississippi Supreme Court · 1988
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.