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

Law Commons

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

Articles 1 - 6 of 6

Full-Text Articles in Law

Civil Procedure-Parties-Intervention Denied Where Applicant Asserts An Independent Cause Of Action In Damage Suit, Richard P. Matsch S.Ed. Dec 1952

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.


Evidence-Presumptions-Plaintiff's Res Ipsa Loquitur Against Defendants Presumption Of Due Care, Bernard A. Petrie S.Ed. Dec 1952

Evidence-Presumptions-Plaintiff's Res Ipsa Loquitur Against Defendants Presumption Of Due Care, Bernard A. Petrie S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff sued for injuries resulting when an automobile which defendant was driving and in which plaintiff was sleeping left the highway. There was evidence that defendant suffered retrograde amnesia and could not recall the circumstances of the accident. The court, instructing on res ipsa loquitur for plaintiff, told the jury that it might infer negligence from the fact that the automobile inexplicably left the highway. The court also instructed that, if the jury believed that defendant suffered a loss of memory, defendant was presumed to have exercised due care. Verdict for defendant. Plaintiff contended that instruction on the presumption of …


Scott V. Burke [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter Aug 1952

Scott V. Burke [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

It was proper for the trial court to instruct the jury on the inference of negligence under res ipsa loquitur as well as the conflicting presumption of due care that arose if defendant driver was truly unable to recall the cause of the accident.


Rodabaugh V. Tekus [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter Jul 1952

Rodabaugh V. Tekus [Dissent], Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

The doctrine of last clear chance rarely applied in cases involving high speed collisions between vehicles because it was extremely difficult to determine which party, if any, had a meaningful last clear chance to avoid an accident.


Torts-Statutes-Unsatisified Judgment And Hit-And-Run Provisions As Supplementing Financial Responsibility Acts, Herbert L. Meschke Jun 1952

Torts-Statutes-Unsatisified Judgment And Hit-And-Run Provisions As Supplementing Financial Responsibility Acts, Herbert L. Meschke

Michigan Law Review

In 1947, North Dakota enacted legislation providing that one who recovers a judgment in an action for damages for personal injuries or death resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle and who cannot execute the judgment because of the defendants' inability to pay and lack of property, may receive payment from the state unsatisfied judgment fund upon application to the court and assignment of the judgment to the state. The fund was created, and is to be maintained, by a special assessment on motor vehicle owners. 1951 North Dakota legislation provides that any person who has a cause of …


Federal Procedure-Removal Of Causes-Meaning Of "Receipt By Defendant" When Service Is On A Nonresident Motorist, Gordon I. Ginsberg S.Ed. Apr 1952

Federal Procedure-Removal Of Causes-Meaning Of "Receipt By Defendant" When Service Is On A Nonresident Motorist, Gordon I. Ginsberg S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

As a result of an automobile accident in Missouri, the plaintiff, a resident of Missouri, brought a damage action in Missouri against the defendant, a resident of Illinois. Service was had on the defendant by serving the Secretary of State of Missouri and sending notice by registered mail to the defendant, pursuant to the Missouri nonresident motorist statute. Service was received by the Secretary of State on January 13, 1951, and notice was received by the defendant on January 20, 1951. The defendant removed the cause to the federal district court on February 9, 1951. The plaintiff moved to remand …