Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federal Procedure - Trial Practice - Not Reversible Error For Trial Judge To Summon Jury Sua Sponte After Waiver, Thomas A. Dieterich
Federal Procedure - Trial Practice - Not Reversible Error For Trial Judge To Summon Jury Sua Sponte After Waiver, Thomas A. Dieterich
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff instituted this action for breach of contract and defendant counterclaimed. Neither party demanded a jury trial during the period in which it was claimable as of right. Subsequently defendant moved for a jury trial. The motion was denied and was never renewed. Seven months later, on the eve of the trial, the court issued an order sua sponte for a jury trial. Plaintiff's objection was overruled. The jury awarded damages to plaintiff in the same amount as the conceded counterclaim. On appeal, held, affirmed, one judge dissenting. Although the trial judge's action in calling a jury on his …
Rules Of Practice And Procedure: A Study Of Judicial Rule Making, Charles W. Joiner, Oscar J. Miller
Rules Of Practice And Procedure: A Study Of Judicial Rule Making, Charles W. Joiner, Oscar J. Miller
Michigan Law Review
The rule-making power of the courts in the United States is is brought into focus wherever procedural reform is undertaken. As more and more states have undertaken rev1s1on of judicial procedures, the power and authority of courts to promulgate rules of practice and the definition of the scope of such rules have claimed increasingly the attention of legal writers. This trend can be attributed in part to a growing realization that statutes governing practice and procedure in courts, enacted by legislatures meeting every year or two, have failed to achieve that minimum standard in the administration of justice necessary to …
Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed
Compulsory Joinder Of Parties In Civil Actions, John W. Reed
Michigan Law Review
Compulsory joinder cases involving interests in land display one peculiar and important characteristic: there is almost never any need in the state courts to wrestle with the question of whether a person is indispensable as distinguished from necessary. One hastens to add that this attribute of land cases appears to have gone largely unnoticed, but it exists none the less. It arises out of the fact that in a suit involving real property it is never impossible for the court to obtain jurisdiction over all persons interested therein to an extent which will enable the court to adjudicate controversies over …