Legal Opinion

Atkinson v. Metropolitan Life Ins.

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 2, 1926No. 19183PublishedCited by 32 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMarshall, C. J.

The major question in this case is one of correct interpretation of that provision of the policy quoted in the foregoing statement. The first two lines of that provision define the right of the insured to make a change of beneficiary. That right is without qualification. The remainder of the paragraph regulates the manner of the exercise of that right. The first two lines are mandatory upon the company, and the right thereby created may not be denied or abridged. Neither those two lines nor any other provisions of the policy which have been brought to our notice give to the company the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1915
  2. McDonald v. McDonaldSupreme Court of Alabama · 1924
  3. Knights of Maccabees of the World v. SackettMontana Supreme Court · 1906
  4. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. WhiteSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1898
  5. Modern Brotherhood v. MatkovitchIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914

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

3Cited by32 opinions

  1. Dooley v. James A. Dooley Associates Employees Retirement PlanIllinois Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. MooreCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1944
  3. Stone v. StephensOhio Supreme Court · 1951
  4. Faulkner v. FaulknerMississippi Supreme Court · 1942
  5. Tomaneng v. ReevesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1950

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

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

Powered by the Exa API