William E. Bufalino v. The Michigan Bell Telephone Company

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff cannot pursue claims against “the fictitious designation of ‘Does.’”
• “The original fraud is regarded as a continuing affirmative act, and mere silence of the defendant is treated as concealment.”
• “The action was never commenced as to the ‘Does' because they were not identified nor served with process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).