Changes

In '''''Burnett v. New York C. R. Co.''''', 380 U.S. 424 (1965), The [[United States Supreme Court]] created an exception to the general rule that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action without prejudice, the plaintiff is in the same legal position as if he or she had never brought the suit.  This exception was created only when fairness required that the action not be barred when the prior suit was timely filed but was dismissed for improper venue.

[[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg]][[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg]][[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg]][[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg]][[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg]][[File:Question-Evolution-Campaign.jpg]] 19:27, 18 December 2011 (EST)In '''''Burnett v. New York C. R. Co.''''', 380 U.S. 424 (1965), The [[United States Supreme Court]] created an exception to the general rule that when a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses an action without prejudice, the plaintiff is in the same legal position as if he or she had never brought the suit.  This exception was created only when fairness required that the action not be barred when the prior suit was timely filed but was dismissed for improper venue.

"On March 13, 1963, petitioner, a resident of Kentucky, began an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. 51 et seq. (1958 ed.), in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio. He alleged that he had been injured on March 17, 1960, in Indiana, while in the course of his employment with respondent, the New York Central Railroad. The  Ohio court had jurisdiction of the action, and respondent was properly served with process. The action was dismissed upon respondent's motion, however, because [[venue]] was improper."

"On March 13, 1963, petitioner, a resident of Kentucky, began an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. 51 et seq. (1958 ed.), in the Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County, Ohio. He alleged that he had been injured on March 17, 1960, in Indiana, while in the course of his employment with respondent, the New York Central Railroad. The  Ohio court had jurisdiction of the action, and respondent was properly served with process. The action was dismissed upon respondent's motion, however, because [[venue]] was improper."