Legal Opinion

Sizemore v. Smith

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided August 31, 1983No. 82-105Published

1DissentClifford F. Brown, J.

In my view, the service of summons *335by publication was sufficient and valid. “Reasonable diligence” to ascertain the residence of defendant was made by the plaintiff. The court of appeals correctly noted that “reasonable diligence” as defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (5 Ed. 1979), at 412, means, “[a] fair, proper and due degree of care and activity, measured with reference to the particular circumstances; such diligence, care, or attention as might be expected from a man of ordinary prudence and activity.”

“Reasonable diligence” does not require an exasperatingly intense effort be focused on…

Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ricky D. Hitt, Kathleen Hitt and Charlott Cross v. The City of Pasadena and John Ray Harrison, Individually and as Mayor of PasadenaCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  2. James B. Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency United States Department of Defense U.S. ArmyCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1981
  3. Velotta v. Leo Petronzio Landscaping, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Chadwick v. Barba Lou, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Baker v. McKnightOhio Supreme Court · 1983

6 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