Legal Opinion

Bimac Corp. v. Henry

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 27, 1973No. 7318SC206PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

VAUGHN, Judge.

Defendants contend that the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, did not have jurisdiction over the parties and that the judgment rendered by that court is invalid.

*541Rule 4.3 of the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure governs procedures for out-of-state service of process. Rule 4.3 became effective on 1 July 1970. Rule 86, Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure. Pertinent sections of Rule 4.3 are:

“ (A) When service permitted. Service of process may be made outside of this state, as provided herein, in any action in this state, upon a person who at the time of service of process is a…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Lantsberry v. Tilley Lamp Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Air Transport, Inc. v. Ransom Aircraft Sales & Brokerage, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 1971
  3. Wright v. Automatic Valve Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1969

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Sawyer v. CoxCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API