Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
State and Local Government Law Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in State and Local Government Law
Civil Procedure-Parties-Intervention Denied Where Applicant Asserts An Independent Cause Of Action In Damage Suit, Richard P. Matsch S.Ed.
Civil Procedure-Parties-Intervention Denied Where Applicant Asserts An Independent Cause Of Action In Damage Suit, Richard P. Matsch S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
ln plaintiff's action for property damages sustained in a collision with defendant's automobile, defendant's wife filed a petition of intervention for her claim against plaintiff for personal injuries received in the accident. Plaintiff's motion to strike the petition of intervention was overruled by the trial court. On appeal, held, reversed. Petitioner's cause of action was independent of the controversy between plaintiff and defendant and did not fall within the provisions of the court rule allowing intervention. Edgington v. Nichols, (Iowa 1951) 49 N.W. (2d) 555.
Federal Courts - Substance And Procedure - Effect Of Erie Railroad V. Tompkins And Rule 8 (C) Of The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Upon Burden Of Proof Of Contributory Negligence, John H. Uhl
Michigan Law Review
The case of Erie Railroad v. Tompkins has wrought a great change in the relationship between the state and federal courts. Prior to its decision, the federal courts under the rule of Swift v. Tyson did not have to apply the state non-statutory law. They could apply their own notions as to what the law was in matters of general law relating to substance. The Conformity Act compelled the federal courts to follow the practice, pleading, and forms and modes of proceeding in like causes in the courts of the state within which the federal district courts were held. In …
Privity Of Parties And Attack For Fraud On Judgments Of Sister State
Privity Of Parties And Attack For Fraud On Judgments Of Sister State
Michigan Law Review
An interesting recent decision in Minnesota, Schendel v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., raises two important questions concerning the effect to be given in one state of the Union to a judgment rendered in the courts of another. An action was brought in Minnesota by a special administrator, there appointed, to recover damages for the death of his decedent. The accident resulting in death had occurred in Iowa while the decedent, it was claimed, was engaged in inter-state commerce, so as to bring the claim within the federal statute. To this Minnesota action the defendant set up …