Heikkala v. Isaacson
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Baraga; O’Brien, J. Case by Daniel Heikkala against August Isaacson and the Michigan Bonding & Surety Company for injuries sustained at the hands of an intoxicated person. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtStone, J.
This action was brought to recover damages under the statute regulating the liquor traffic. By section 5398, 2 Comp. Laws (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 5074), it is provided that:
“Every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband, or other person, who shall be injured in person or property, or means of support or otherwise, by any intoxicated person or by reason of the intoxication of any person, or by reason of the selling, giving or furnishing any spirituous, intoxicating, fermented, or malt liquors, to any person, shall have a right of action in his or her own name, against any person or persons who…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Brooks v. CookMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Brockway v. PattersonMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Flower v. WitkovskyMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
- Thomas v. DansbyMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- English v. BeardIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kangas v. SuchorskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1964
- James v. WickerAppellate Court of Illinois · 1941
- Malone v. LambrechtMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
- Morton v. RothMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- McDaniel v. CrapoMichigan Supreme Court · 1950
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.