Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Broker (2)
- Liability (2)
- Negligence (2)
- Bank v. Randell (1)
- Bulk Sales Act (1)
-
- Carmack Amendment (1)
- Carrier (1)
- Clayton Act (1)
- Commission (1)
- Competition (1)
- Confession (1)
- Cummins Amendment (1)
- Deed (1)
- Dying declaration (1)
- Emery & Co. v. American Refrigerator Transit Co. (1)
- Exception (1)
- Gaither v. Charlotte Motor Car Co. (1)
- Hinson v. State (1)
- Hydroplane (1)
- Innkeeper (1)
- Insanity (1)
- Interstate rate (1)
- Jones v. Bland (1)
- Jury (1)
- Jutras v. Boisvert (1)
- Kansas declaratory judgment (1)
- Kausch v. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Ry. Co. (1)
- Lingquist v. Loble (1)
- Mens rea (1)
- Negotiable instrument (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review
Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
No abstract provided.
Note And Comment, Edwin C. Goddard, George Seletto, Edson R. Sunderland, Victor H. Lane, Burke Shartel, George E. Longstaff
Note And Comment, Edwin C. Goddard, George Seletto, Edson R. Sunderland, Victor H. Lane, Burke Shartel, George E. Longstaff
Michigan Law Review
Carriers - Second Cummins Amendment - It was seven years after the Carmack Amendment of the Hepburn Act of i9o6 before the Supreme Court began that series of decisions, extending from Adams Express Co. v. Croninger, 226 U. S. 491 (1913), to George N. Pierce Co. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 236 U. S. 278 (1915), which directly resulted in the First Cummins Amendment of March, 1915. One has only to read those cases, reviewed in 13 Micn. L. REv. 59o, and other notes referred to in 17 MICH. L. Rzv. 183, to see that the language of the Cummins …
Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review
Recent Important Decisions, Michigan Law Review
Michigan Law Review
Admiralty - Workmen's Compensation - Is a Hydroplane a Vessel? - Claimant was employed in the care and management of a hydroplane which was moored in navigable waters. The hydroplane began to drag anchor and drift toward the beach, where it was in danger of being wrecked. Claimant waded into the water and was struck by the propeller. Held, claimant is not entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law, since a hydroplane while on navigable waters is a vessel, and therefore the jurisdiction of the admiralty excludes that of the State Industrial Commission. Reinhardt v. Newport Flying Service Corp. …