Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Wuchter Vs. Pizzutti

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 20, 1928

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

72 entries 6 linked 66 unlinked
Show
  1. Roller Vs. Holly US Supreme Court · Feb 26, 1900
  2. Edwards Vs. Elliott US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1874
    Relied / Followed
  3. Bolln Vs. Nebraska US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1900
    Relied / Followed
  4. Cox Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · May 21, 1906
  5. Bullen Vs. Wisconsin US Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1916
  6. Hess Vs. Pawloski US Supreme Court · May 16, 1927
  7. U.S. 13 (1928) U.S. Supreme Court Wuchter v. Pizzutti
    Search
  8. U.S. 13 (1928) Wuchter v. Pizzutti
    Search
  9. s power to regulate the use of its highways extends to their use by nonresidents as well as by residents. Hendrick v. Maryland
    Search
  10. in such operation. This was under the license act or New Jersey, last above referred to, and not No. 232. Kane v. New
    Search
  11. equivalent of the appointment by him of a state official as agent on whom process in such a case may be served. Hess v. Pawloski
    Search
  12. A provision of law for service that leaves open such a clear opportunity for the commission of fraud ( Heinemann v. Pier
    Search
  13. be depriving a defendant of his property without due process of law. The Massachusetts statute considered in Hess v. Pawloski
    Search
  14. really made necessary actual personal service to be evidenced by the written admission of the defendant. In Kane v. New
    Search
  15. a resident agent to be served are not especially applicable to the present statute. Pennsylvania Fire Insurance Co. v. Gold
    Search
  16. Simon v. Southern
    Search
  17. Old Wayne Mutual Life Association v. McDonough
    Search
  18. be made to give the foreign corporations notice that suit has been brought and citation served. Southern Railway Co. v. Simon
    Search
  19. Gouner v. Missouri
    Search
  20. The question is mooted in Simon v. Southern
    Search
  21. for service upon proposed defendants, corporate or otherwise, where personal service cannot be had. In Nelson v. Chicago
    Search
  22. would receive actual notice of the action before judgment was rendered against it. In Jefferson Fire Insurance Co. v. Brackin
    Search
  23. the company would receive notice in cases where there was no longer a place of business in the county. In Pinney v. Providence
    Search
  24. In Town of Hinckley v. Kettle
    Search
  25. and likely to communicate actual notice of the commencement of the action to the corporation. In McDonald v. Mabee
    Search
  26. Roller v. Holly
    Search
  27. directed by the statute, it cannot therefore supply constitutional validity to the statute or to service under it. Coe v. Armour
    Search
  28. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Stock
    Search
  29. Security Trust Co. v. Lexington
    Search
  30. Stuart v. Palmer
    Search
  31. Berryhill v. Sepp
    Search
  32. state might require the defendant to appoint the Secretary of State as his agent to receive service, as held in Kane v. New
    Search
  33. the validity of that objection was an open question. Before the case was reached for argument in this Court, Hess v. Pawloski
    Search
  34. the secretary shall notify the nonresident denies due process -- is an afterthought provoked by our decision in Hess v. Pawloski
    Search
  35. U. S. 26 practice that objections not raised or considered below cannot be relied on here. First National Bank v. Commonwealth
    Search
  36. Detroit, Ft. Wayne & Belle Isle R. Co. v. Osborn
    Search
  37. Haire v. Rice
    Search
  38. is immaterial that Wuchter made a general objection that the statute violated the due process clause. Compare Wilson v. McNamee
    Search
  39. Dewey v. Des
    Search
  40. notice. Its able opinion shows that it appreciates fully the requirements of the due process clause. See also Redzina v. Provident
    Search
  41. was ascertainable. Such an administrative construction would carry great weight with the courts of New Jersey ( State v. Kelsey
    Search
  42. Stephens v. Civil
    Search
  43. Service Commission, 101 N.J.Law, 192, 194), as it would with this Court ( United States v. Cerecedo
    Search
  44. not be adopted if some other construction is open is a rule commonly acted upon by the courts of New Jersey ( Colwell v. May's
    Search
  45. Atlantic City Water Works Co. v. Consumers
    Search
  46. State v. Taxhin
    Search
  47. N.J.Law 270, 274), as it is in this Court ( Texas v. Eastern
    Search
  48. Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Railroad
    Search
  49. South Utah Mines v. Beaver
    Search
  50. Matthew Addy Co. v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial