Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Suits Against Unincorporated Associations Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, John Kaplan
Suits Against Unincorporated Associations Under The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, John Kaplan
Michigan Law Review
Concepts, Benjamin Cardozo has said, "are useful, indeed indispensable, if kept within their place. We will press them quite a distance. . . . A time comes, however, when the concepts carry us too far, or farther than we are ready to go with them, and behold, some other concept, with capacity to serve our needs is waiting at the gate. 'It is a peculiar virtue of our system of law that the process of inclusion and exclusion, so often employed in developing a rule, is not allowed to end with its enunciation, and that an expression in an opinion …
Federal Procedure - Jurisdiction - Suit Under Direct Action Statute Where There Is Diversity Of Citizenship Between Claimant And Insurer But Not Between Claimant And Wrongdoer, William R. Jentes
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, a citizen of Louisiana, was injured in an automobile accident allegedly caused by the negligence of another citizen of Louisiana. Defendant insurance company, an Illinois corporation, had issued a public liability policy insuring the latter against claims arising from the negligent operation of his car. Pursuant to a Louisiana statutory provision that "the injured person or his or her heirs, at their option, shall have a right of direct action . . . against the insurer alone or against both the insured and the insurer, jointly and in solido,'' respondent brought an action against the petitioner alone in the …
Federal Procedure - Realignment Of Parties In Non-Diversity Case, David D. Dowd, Jr S.Ed.
Federal Procedure - Realignment Of Parties In Non-Diversity Case, David D. Dowd, Jr S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff (S1), a surety for the subcontractor, brought an action against the subcontractor and the prime contractor to compel them to set off their respective counterclaims in order to diminish the liability of S1. The subcontractor had another surety (S2) on a different obligation arising out of the same construction job, and the prime contractor, uncertain where liability should be placed, impleaded S2. On S1's motion to vacate the impleader order, held, denied, and the court on its own motion directed realignment of the parties, ruling that the main issue was division of …