Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Evidence

Michigan Law Review

Compensation

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Civil Procedure - Compensation Of Witnesses In A Civil Action, David W. Belin S.Ed. Nov 1953

Civil Procedure - Compensation Of Witnesses In A Civil Action, David W. Belin S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

As the amount and complexity of litigation has increased, there have been corresponding increases in demands for added compensation of witnesses. Like the juror, the witness often receives the time-honored answer that he cannot be heard to complain that his compensation is inadequate; the administration of justice is a mutual benefit to all members of the community, and each is under a public duty to further it.

At common law witnesses received no compensation. Time spent in testifying was held to be claimed by the public as a tax, paid by the witness to the system of law which protected …


Eminent Domain-Effect Of Zoning Ordinances On Measure Of Damages, A. E. Anderson S.Ed. May 1948

Eminent Domain-Effect Of Zoning Ordinances On Measure Of Damages, A. E. Anderson S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

In a proceeding to condemn land located in an area subject to zoning restrictions, defendant contended that in fixing value the adaptability for all possible uses should be considered whether or not such uses were forbidden by zoning ordinances. The trial court instructed the jury that it should consider only the uses to which the property was suitable and available. On appeal, held, affirmed. Long Beach City High School District v. Stewart, (Cal. 1947) 185 P. (2d) 585.


Evidence- Statutes - Contradiction Of Legislative Journal Entry To Show Date Of Receipt Of Bill By Governor, Emerson T. Chandler May 1948

Evidence- Statutes - Contradiction Of Legislative Journal Entry To Show Date Of Receipt Of Bill By Governor, Emerson T. Chandler

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, a tax assessor, sought to recover salary claims against a county, contending that compensation was payable under an act passed by the General Assembly but vetoed by the governor. An entry in the House journal reported delivery of the bill to the governor on March 5. The Assembly adjourned March 13, and the governor vetoed the bill March 28. An official receipt dated March 10 had been given for the bill by the governor's office. The Arkansas Constitution gives the governor five days within which to approve or disapprove the bill. If he fails to act, the bill becomes …