Legal Opinion

Volmer v. Hoel

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided February 6, 1950No. 7207PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Plaintiff's cause of action, upon which he recovered a verdict and judgment, arose when he sustained bodily injuries in an automobile accident which occurred on Spring Grove avenue in the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton county, Ohio, on April 23, 1946.

The principal contention made on this appeal on questions of law is that the suit is now barred by the two-year statute of limitation set forth in Section 11224-1, General Code, for such bodily injuries, for the reason that no valid service of process was had on the defendant in this case.

Under favor of Section 6308, General Code, plaintiff chose…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hess v. PawloskiSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
  2. Wuchter v. PizzuttiSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  3. Couts v. RoseOhio Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Hendershot v. FerkelOhio Supreme Court · 1944
  5. State ex el. Nelson v. GrimmWisconsin Supreme Court · 1935

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Carlson v. BosUtah Supreme Court · 1987
  2. Coffey v. ShenkOhio Court of Appeals · 1974
  3. State v. SimmonsRavenna Municipal Court · 1960
  4. Carlson v. BosUtah Supreme Court · 1987

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

Powered by the Exa API