Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Agent of the sovereign (1)
- Automobile accident (1)
- Bowles v. Ohlhausen (1)
- Cause of action (1)
- Chicago Milk Wagon Drivers' dispute (1)
-
- Co-owners (1)
- Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. (1)
- Connecticut (1)
- Consolidation (1)
- Continuing power (1)
- Denial (1)
- Directed verdict (1)
- Diversity of citizenship (1)
- Doctrine of automatic vacation (1)
- Driver (1)
- Emergency Price Control (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Friend v. Middle Atlantic Transp. Co. (1)
- Husband (1)
- Injunctive decrees (1)
- Joinder in equity (1)
- Kentucky (1)
- Liability (1)
- No susbstantial value (1)
- Office of Price Administration (1)
- Ohio (1)
- Remedies (1)
- Representative suits (1)
- Right to jury trial (1)
- South Carolina (1)
- Publication
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Injunctions-Power Of A Court To Modify A Final Permanent, Injunction, Charles B. Blackmar S.Ed.
Injunctions-Power Of A Court To Modify A Final Permanent, Injunction, Charles B. Blackmar S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
A court which has issued a permanent injunction may, under certain conditions, open and modify or dissolve the injunction even though the decree in the original action has become final. This power is said to be justified by the continuing operation of the injunction, which regulates future conduct as well as determining the rights of the parties as of the date of rendition of the decree. The same proposition can be restated by saying that injunctions are issued to protect existing rights, but provide no immunity against modification of those rights because of later changes in the applicable law or …
Federal Courts-Rules Of Civil Procedure-Construction Of Rule 50 (B), Daniel W. Reddin, Ii
Federal Courts-Rules Of Civil Procedure-Construction Of Rule 50 (B), Daniel W. Reddin, Ii
Michigan Law Review
This action was brought in a South Carolina state court and removed to the federal district court on grounds of diversity of citizenship. After the evidence of both parties had been presented, the court denied defendant's motion for a directed verdict. Thereafter, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Although defendant filed a motion for a new trial on grounds of newly discovered evidence which the court denied, he did not move to have the verdict and judgment set aside and to have judgment entered in his favor as he might have done under Rule 50 (b) of the …
Abatement And Revival-Federal Courts-Abatement Of Action By Federal Official Unless Successor Substituted As Party Plaintiff Within Six Months, John M. Veale S.Ed.
Abatement And Revival-Federal Courts-Abatement Of Action By Federal Official Unless Successor Substituted As Party Plaintiff Within Six Months, John M. Veale S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
The administrator of the Office of Price Administration began an action on behalf of the United States against the defendant to enforce certain penalties for the violation of the Emergency Price Control Act. While the action was pending the administrator was succeeded in office. Counsel for the government, however, failed to move to substitute his successor as a party plaintiff until more than six months thereafter. The defendant then moved to dismiss the action on the grounds that unless such substitution was made within the six months specified by section 780 of the Judicial Code and Rule 25(d), Federal Rules …
Required Joinder Of Claims, William Wirt Blume
Required Joinder Of Claims, William Wirt Blume
Michigan Law Review
There are three principal reasons for requiring the joinder of claims: (1) To prevent the evils of a multiplicity of suits. (2) To eliminate the possibility of more than one recovery on one liability. (3) To make possible the ranking of claims and a pro rata distribution of property. In this paper the writer will undertake a brief survey of the common situations in which joinder of claims is or may be required, with the object of indicating the extent to which the practice is bottomed on the principle of preventing unnecessary suits.
Federal Procedure-Impleader Under Rule I4-Lack Of Diversity Of Citizenship Between Original Plaintiff And Third-Party Defendant, Frank E. Roegge S.Ed.
Federal Procedure-Impleader Under Rule I4-Lack Of Diversity Of Citizenship Between Original Plaintiff And Third-Party Defendant, Frank E. Roegge S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff, a citizen of Connecticut sued defendant, a citizen of Ohio, for injuries received when the car in which plaintiff was a passenger collided with a truck driven by defendant. Defendant removed the case from a Connecticut state court to a federal district court and then obtained an order citing plaintiff's husband, a citizen of Connecticut and the driver of the car in which plaintiff was riding, as a third-party defendant under Rule 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant had no claim against the third party by Connecticut substantive law which does not recognize contribution between tort-feasors. …
Right Of Jury Trial In Kentucky Of Legal Issues In An Equitable Proceeding, James E. Adkins
Right Of Jury Trial In Kentucky Of Legal Issues In An Equitable Proceeding, James E. Adkins
Kentucky Law Journal
No abstract provided.