Legal Opinion

Mercer Casualty Co. v. Perlman

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided April 24, 1939PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCarpenter, J.

At the instance of plaintiff, substituted service of summons upon defendant was had under Section 6308-1 et seq., General Code. It claims that this is a “civil suit or proceeding instituted in the courts of the state of Ohio * * * arising out of, or by reason of, any accident or collision occurring within the state in which such [defendant’s] motor vehicle is involved.” Section 6308-1, General Code.

A motion to quash the services was sustained by the trial court and the petition was dismissed for the reason that the cause stated in the petition was not one within the meaning of the section…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. New York & New Haven RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1856
  2. Gatzweiler v. Milwaukee Electric Railway & Light Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Stark County Agricultural Society v. BrennerOhio Supreme Court · 1930
  4. Canton Provision Co. v. GauderOhio Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Aetna Life Insurance v. J. B. Parker & Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1903

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Crab Orchard Improvement Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1940
  2. City of Birmingham v. WalkerSupreme Court of Alabama · 1958
  3. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1962
  4. Robles Menéndez v. Tribunal Superior de Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962
  5. Robles Menéndez v. Superior Court of Puerto RicoSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API