Legal Opinion

Oropesa v. Huffman Manufacturing Co.

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided December 4, 1965No. 2942PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtKerns, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from an order of the Dayton Municipal Court wherein the defendant’s demurrer to the plaintiff’s third amended petition was sustained, aud, the plaintiff electing not to plead further, the cause was dismissed.

Omitting its formal caption, the third amended petition reads as follows:

“1 Plaintiff for her cause of action says that at all times herein mentioned she was and is the parent and natural guardian of Ralph S. Oropesa, a minor.

‘ ‘ 2. Plaintiff further says that the defendant The Huffman Manufacturing Company was and is at all times herein mentioned a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1916
  2. Murphy v. Cory Pump & Supply Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1964
  3. Gilbride v. James Leffel & Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1942
  4. Mobberly v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1965

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Myers v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1969
  3. Wells v. Jeep CorporationWyoming Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Nick Strimbu and Julia Strimbu v. American Chain & Cable Company Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
  5. prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 10,856 Peter R. Briney v. Sears, Roebuck & CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1986

1 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