Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Discovery (3)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (3)
- Attorney-client privilege (1)
- Bailey v. Patterson (1)
- Bill of particulars (1)
-
- Cause of action (1)
- Contributory negligence (1)
- Corporate defendant (1)
- Counsel remark (1)
- Evidentiary rule (1)
- Fact pleading (1)
- Federal Rule 16 (1)
- General Court Rules (1)
- Grant of jury (1)
- Hurn v. Oursler (1)
- Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein (1)
- Improper argument (1)
- Inadmissible evidence (1)
- Joinder of claims (1)
- Joint Committee on Michigan Procedural Revision (1)
- Jones Act (1)
- Judicial Code (1)
- Judicial participation (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Jury instruction (1)
- Kesler v. Department of Public Safety (1)
- Maritime claim (1)
- Material fact (1)
- Misleading statement (1)
- Model Code of Evidence (1)
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Federal Jurisdiction-Federal Civil Procedure-Right To Jury Trial Of Seaman's Claim For Maintenance And Cure Where Joined With Claim Under Jones Act, Edwin A. Howe Jr.
Federal Jurisdiction-Federal Civil Procedure-Right To Jury Trial Of Seaman's Claim For Maintenance And Cure Where Joined With Claim Under Jones Act, Edwin A. Howe Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while in the employ of defendant shipowner, filed an action in federal district court. Plaintiff invoked the court's federal-question jurisdiction alone, under section 1331 of the federal Judicial Code. He alleged claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure, and demanded jury trial of all three counts. The trial court sustained the demand as to the first two counts, but ordered that the claim for maintenance and cure be tried to the judge alone, sitting as a court of admiralty. On appeal from the order denying jury trial …
Federal Jurisdiction-Three-Judge Courts-The Recent Evolution In Jurisdiction And Appellate Review, Peter W. Williamson S.Ed.
Federal Jurisdiction-Three-Judge Courts-The Recent Evolution In Jurisdiction And Appellate Review, Peter W. Williamson S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
This comment seeks to analyze each decision against its historical background. No more than a proforma attempt will be made to integrate one decision with the others, for sufficient material is not yet available to predict with any accuracy the Court's ultimate achievements in this important area of federal civil procedure.
Federal Civil Procedure-Federal Rule 16-Definition Of Issues By The Pre-Trial Judge, F. Bruce Kulp Jr.
Federal Civil Procedure-Federal Rule 16-Definition Of Issues By The Pre-Trial Judge, F. Bruce Kulp Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff instituted a civil antitrust suit against defendant in 1956. After numerous pre-trial conferences, the parties reached agreement as to the definition of only some of the issues. On other issues, however, the parties tendered different versions and were unable to reach an agreement. In a progress memorandum, the court issued a pre-trial order adopting defendant's version of the issues and rejecting the version proposed by plaintiff. The court reasoned that, under Federal Rule 16, it has the authority to adopt the formulation of issues proposed by one of the parties even though the other party is not in complete …
The New Michigan Pre-Trial Procedural Rules-Models For Other States?, Robert Meisenholder
The New Michigan Pre-Trial Procedural Rules-Models For Other States?, Robert Meisenholder
Michigan Law Review
The new Michigan procedural laws are embodied in a revised set of statutes and court rules which became effective January 1, 1963, after a long period of study by a Joint Committee on Michigan Procedural Revision. They abolish an anachronistic distinction between procedures in law and equity, abrogate a scattered, disorganized set of rules and statutes, and create a unified, coherent procedural system.
Civil Procedure-Trial Practice-Introduction Of Inadmissible Evidence To Cure Improper Argument By Counsel, Arthur M. Sherwood
Civil Procedure-Trial Practice-Introduction Of Inadmissible Evidence To Cure Improper Argument By Counsel, Arthur M. Sherwood
Michigan Law Review
In a suit to recover damages for wrongful death arising out of an automobile accident, plaintiff's counsel offered in evidence the official report of a police officer, which included the officer's opinion that defendant's parked car had contributed to the collision. Defendant's objection to this evidence was sustained on the grounds that the report was hearsay and that it set forth a conclusion which only the jury could draw. Defendant's counsel, during his summation, asserted that no police officer had said that defendant's car had in any way caused the accident. The court, sua sponte, admitted into evidence the officer's …
Federal Civil Procedure-Federal Rule 12(E): Motion For More Definite Statement- History, Operation And Efficacy, Stefan F. Tucker S.Ed.
Federal Civil Procedure-Federal Rule 12(E): Motion For More Definite Statement- History, Operation And Efficacy, Stefan F. Tucker S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The purpose of this comment is to trace the history of the motion for more definite statement as provided for in the Federal Rules, analyze the reasons for granting or denying the motion, and propose an answer to the question of whether Rule 12(e) is necessary, or superfluous, as part of modern federal pleading procedure.
Civil Procedure-Trial Practice-Special Verdict Question That Can Be Decisive Only If Answered Negatively, Samuel J. Mckim Iii
Civil Procedure-Trial Practice-Special Verdict Question That Can Be Decisive Only If Answered Negatively, Samuel J. Mckim Iii
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff was severely burned by the explosion of a can of "liquid bug killer" allegedly sold to him by defendant. Four issues of fact were raised: whether defendant sold the can in question to plaintiff, the former's negligence, the latter's contributory negligence, and the amount of the damages. The trial judge submitted to the jury, over the objections of both parties, only the first issue, in the form of a single question of fact. The jury, having served three days past the end of its term and one hour past the normal time for adjournment, was instructed that a finding …
Federal Civil Procedure-Discovery-Availability Of Attorney-Client Privilege To Corporations, Stephen M. Wittenberg
Federal Civil Procedure-Discovery-Availability Of Attorney-Client Privilege To Corporations, Stephen M. Wittenberg
Michigan Law Review
During the pre-trial stage of a civil antitrust suit, plaintiff sought inspection of certain documents in the files of the corporate defendants' outside counsel. The defendant contended that these documents were protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege. Upon motion for inspection, held, granted. The attorney-client privilege is not available to any of the corporate parties in this action. Radiant Burners, Inc. v. American Gas Ass'n, 207 F. Supp. 771, aff'd on rehearing, 209 F. Supp. 321 (N.D. Ill. 1962).