Tesar v. Hallas

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that a defamation action against an Ohio reporter who moved to Pennsylvania for employment was barred by the statute of limitations because the tolling provision in R.C. 2305.15(A) was unconstitutional as applied
• residency requirement gives prpspective individual defendant “an even more draconian choice to make than that presented to the foreign corporation in Bendix”
• residency requirement gives prospective individual defendant \an even more draconian choice to make than that presented to the foreign corporation in Bendix \
• “The threshold question is whether [the defendant] can be deemed, in [C]ommerce [C]lause terms, to be or to have been ‘engaged in commerce.’”
• tolling statute unconstitutionally burdened individuals engaged in interstate commerce
• tolling statute unconstitutionally burdened individuals engaged in interstate commerce

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).