Legal Opinion

Patterson v. V & M Auto Body

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 6, 1992No. 91-552PublishedCited by 89 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert R. Brown, J.

In this case we are asked to decide whether a lawsuit may be knowingly maintained against a defendant solely under the fictitious name in which the defendant does business. For the following reasons, we hold that it may not.

It is well established that both plaintiff and defendant in a lawsuit must be legal entities with the capacity to be sued. Cf. Civ.R. 17(B); Barnhart v. Schultz (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 59, 61, 7 O.O.3d 142, 143, 372 N.E.2d 589, 591, overruled on other grounds, Baker v. McKnight (1983), 4 Ohio St.3d 125, 4 OBR 371, 447 N.E.2d 104. A sole proprietorship has no legal identity…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Peterson v. TeodosioOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Duval v. Midwest Auto City, Inc.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1977
  3. State ex rel. Cleveland Municipal Court v. Cleveland City CouncilOhio Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Baker v. McKnightOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. Cartwright v. Atlas Chemical Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1981

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

3Cited by89 opinions

  1. Curtis Bartlett v. John A. Heibl and John A. Heibl, Attorney at LawCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
  2. Vernon v. SchusterIllinois Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State ex rel. Grendell v. DavidsonOhio Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State ex rel. Askew v. GoldhartOhio Supreme Court · 1996
  5. Pinkerton's, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996

84 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