Allamong v. Falkenhof
Ohio Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
VICKERY, PJ.
Now it is claimed that'this is hot res adjudicata because in the Common Pelas, Court there were alleged very serious injuries to the plaintiff, that is, personal injuries which in amount was much greater than the Municipal Court had jurisdiction of and, therefore, it could not be res adjudicata because the Municipal Court did not have complete jurisdiction over the possible amount that might have been recovered for, as alleged in the plaintiff’s petition, the plaintiff suffered the loss of one, if not both, eyes and, of course, that injury if sustained by proof would entitle the…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Todhunter v. SmithCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
- United States v. SillimanCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1948
- Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1945
- Geracy, Inc. v. HooverCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1942
- Gollner v. CramSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1960
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.