Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Street Ry Co. v. Whitehead

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 22, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRoss, J.

It is contended on behalf of the defendant' in error that it is not necessary to consider this question, as the extent of the injuries and amount of expense incurred were not developed until long after ‘the date when such injuries were received, and that the statute runs from the date when the extent- of the injuries are known and the expense is incurred. We consider such claim untenable, and hold that the statute runs from the date of the reception of the injury.

The assignment of error does, however, raise an interesting question and one which requires a careful consideration of the act of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Smith v. New York Central Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1930
  2. Hey v. PrimeMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
  3. Kelley v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1897
  4. Barnes v. HurdMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Viock v. Stowe-Woodward Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1983
  2. Cramer v. PriceOhio Court of Appeals · 1948
  3. Noll v. Rinex Laboratories Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1935
  4. Corpman v. BoyerOhio Supreme Court · 1960
  5. Surface Combustion Corp. v. GlanderUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API