From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schuh v. Schuh

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 8, 1957
142 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio 1957)

Summary

In Mills v. City of Springfield, 166 Ohio St. 412, 75 Abs. 150, 142 N.E.2d 859 (1956), the plaintiff fell and was injured while attempting to traverse a large mound of snow caused by plowing activities, and she brought suit against the city alleging negligence.

Summary of this case from Norman v. City of Gillette

Opinion

No. 35107

Decided May 8, 1957.

Supreme court — Dismissal — No debatable constitutional question involved — Divorce action — Corporate codefendant — Summons — Notice of trial setting — Published in official organ of court — Sufficiency — Necessity of actual notice — Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas — Rules of court — Reversal — By Court of Appeals — No bill of exceptions filed — Article V, Amendments, U.S. Constitution — Due process.

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County.

Messrs. Harmon, Colston, Goldsmith Hoadly, Mr. Henry B. Street and Mr. Douglas G. Cole, for appellant.

Messrs. Goodman Goodman, for appellees.


The appeal as of right herein is dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

Appeal dismissed.

WEYGANDT, C.J., ZIMMERMAN, STEWART, BELL, TAFT, MATTHIAS and HERBERT, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schuh v. Schuh

Supreme Court of Ohio
May 8, 1957
142 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio 1957)

In Mills v. City of Springfield, 166 Ohio St. 412, 75 Abs. 150, 142 N.E.2d 859 (1956), the plaintiff fell and was injured while attempting to traverse a large mound of snow caused by plowing activities, and she brought suit against the city alleging negligence.

Summary of this case from Norman v. City of Gillette
Case details for

Schuh v. Schuh

Case Details

Full title:SCHUH, APPELLANT v. SCHUH ET AL., APPELLEES

Court:Supreme Court of Ohio

Date published: May 8, 1957

Citations

142 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio 1957)
142 N.E.2d 859

Citing Cases

Norman v. City of Gillette

There being no Wyoming case law on this point, I will look to other jurisdictions for my resolution to this…

Profitt v. Tate Monroe Water Ass'n, Inc.

{¶ 27} In reaching this decision we note "[t]he law does not require what is unreasonable, nor does it…