Legal Opinion

Hanratty v. Godfrey

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided November 30, 1932PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSherick, J.

The question raised by the claimed errors is whether or not, under these facts, an action can be maintained directly against the sheriff and his bondsman. They first assert that the mere mechanical act by the deputy in operating the car was not an act done in an official capacity, or the performance of an official duty. Secondly, it is contended that even if the deputy was acting in an official capacity he was in the performance of a governmental duty, and that neither the sheriff nor his deputy would be liable in his official capacity.

The' plaintiffs in error recognize that §2834 GC, makes…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. SamuelsOhio Supreme Court · 1927

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Willie C. Gossett v. Chrysler Corporation, a Delaware CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1966
  2. Gray v. De BrettonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1939
  3. Duran v. Mission MortuarySupreme Court of Kansas · 1953
  4. Poole v. BruntMississippi Supreme Court · 1976
  5. Nelson v. BartellWashington Supreme Court · 1940

9 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