Legal Opinion
Immel v. Richards
Ohio Supreme Court
Decided June 21, 1950No. 32031PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTurner, J.
Defendant-appellant’s principal contention is that the evidence proves no pecuniary damage.
This is an action under Section 10509-167, General Code, which provides in part :
“An action for wrongful death must be brought in the name of the personal representative of the deceased person, but shall be for the exclusive benefit of the surviving spouse, the children and other next of kin of the decedent. The jury may give such damages as it may think proportioned to the pecuniary injury resulting from such death, to the persons, respectively, for whose benefit the action was brought.”
In his brief…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Karr, Admr. v. SixtOhio Supreme Court · 1946
- Clarke v. . Eighth Ave. R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
3Cited by13 opinions
- Hildreth v. KeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
- Jones v. CarvellUtah Supreme Court · 1982
- Hord v. National Homeopathic HospitalDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1952
- Wasilko v. United StatesDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1967
- United States v. BedonieDistrict Court, D. Utah · 2004
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.