Legal Opinion
Matthews v. Raff, Admr.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided February 16, 1933PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
By SHERICK, PJ.
It is reasoned that, ix me trial court was right, the new two-month section is given a retroactive interpretation, and since a reasonable time was not provided for the bringing of suit after the effective date of the section, it would be unconstitutional if so construed. As a second ground, it is urged that §26, GC, provides that remedial mandatory statutes are not applicable to proceedings pending on the effective date of such statutes.
The plaintiff maintains that his presentation of claim and its rejection was a commencement of his action, and that thereby it was a…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Terry v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Smith v. New York Central Rd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1930
- W. S. Tyler Co. v. RebicOhio Supreme Court · 1928
3Cited by7 opinions
- Philadelphia Nat. Bank v. RaffCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1935
- Ledwell v. May Co.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1977
- In re Estate of GrubeOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
- Mott v. FultonOhio Court of Appeals · 1935
- Whalen v. Citizens Bldg. & Loan Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1940
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.