Rasmussen v. Vance
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court
1Opinion of the CourtMcMonagle, J.
The legal issue presently before the court is the following:
“Do the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure authorize the entry of a judgment for money only in an in personam action where the only service of process upon the defendant has been service by publication?”
In its promulgation of the Civil Rules, the Supreme Court obviously intended to make provision for service in every type of action. It is elementary that some type or method of service of process must be made in every adversary action and, therefore, the Supreme Court did not itemize every type of action and then specify a method of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Olberding v. Illinois Central RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
- Kilbreath v. RudyOhio Supreme Court · 1968
- Hendershot v. FerkelOhio Supreme Court · 1944
- Dolan v. FulkertOhio Court of Appeals · 1972
3Cited by7 opinions
- Sizemore v. SmithOhio Supreme Court · 1983
- Brooks v. RollinsOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Walker v. DallasArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- Brown v. GonzalesOhio Court of Appeals · 1975
- Ohio Fair Plan Underwriting Assn. v. GoldsteinOhio Court of Appeals · 1982
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.