Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Probate-Recent Statutes-"Streamlining'' The Administration Of Small Estates, Joseph Gricar S.Ed.
Probate-Recent Statutes-"Streamlining'' The Administration Of Small Estates, Joseph Gricar S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
One by-product of the research leading to the drafting of the Model Probate Code is a monograph by Professor Paul E. Basye which contains a complete survey of the statutes which simplify or eliminate the regular administration of estates. One portion of the monograph is devoted to statutes which provide methods for the administration of small estates. Since the publication of the monograph, there have been a number of statutes enacted which continue· the trend toward a "streamlined" administration of small estates; with these recent statutes this comment is concerned. Statutes which simplify or eliminate administration but which are not …
Federal Courts-Removal Jurisdiction-Counterclaim As The Sole Basis For Removal, Paul M. D. Harrison S.Ed.
Federal Courts-Removal Jurisdiction-Counterclaim As The Sole Basis For Removal, Paul M. D. Harrison S.Ed.
Michigan Law Review
Plaintiff brought an action for damages in a state court Defendant filed pleas to the declaration, and also filed a counterclaim arising out of the same cause of action. On this date defendant also filed a motion with the Federal District Court asking removal of the case based solely upon his counterclaim. On plaintiff's motion, held, case remanded to the state court. Defendant has no right under the United States Judicial Code to have a case removed from the state court to the federal court when his motion is based upon his own counterclaim. Collins v. Faucett, (D.C. …
Negligence-Joint Enterprise Between Husband And Wife As Basis For Imputation Of Negligence, Theodore Sachs
Negligence-Joint Enterprise Between Husband And Wife As Basis For Imputation Of Negligence, Theodore Sachs
Michigan Law Review
H's car, driven by H with W as passenger, collided with D's car as H and W were traveling from their California home to visit relatives in Florida. Both intended to seek employment in Florida and, if successful, to take up residence there. Each had been employed since marriage, their salaries going into a common fund. From this fund the car was purchased and the trip financed. In suit by W and H against D, held, recovery of W denied. Because there was a joint enterprise between W and H, H's contributory negligence was …