Legal Opinion

Weber v. Ford Motor Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 4, 1928No. Docket No. 99, Calendar No. 34,004PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). We have concluded that the judgment should be affirmed for two reasons, which we shall presently state, but our duty requires us to consider the reasons urged by plaintiff for reversal, and to state why such reasons do not require or justify a reversal. Before taking up the two reasons referred to, we shall consider the other questions discussed.

1. The trial judge signed defendant’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. He refused to find as requested by plaintiff’s counsel on any of the facts, and likewise refused all his requests for conclusions of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Memphis & Charleston Railroad v. NeighborsMississippi Supreme Court · 1875
  2. Barrie v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Epworth Assembly v. Ludington & Northern RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  4. Sliwinski v. GootsteinMichigan Supreme Court · 1926
  5. Hickox v. Chicago & Canada Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Quinn v. Pere Marquette Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Dolby v. State Highway CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Ludington & Northern Railway v. Epworth AssemblyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  4. STURGIS SAVINGS AND LOAN ASS'N v. Italian Village, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Kipp v. State Highway CommissionerMichigan Supreme Court · 1938

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API