Legal Opinion

Baumgartner v. Ham

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1965No. Calendar 42, 43, Docket 50,490, 50,491PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.

These consolidated suits for negligence were tried to a jury. Defendant Ham appeals from judgments entered upon verdict for plaintiff Jane C. Baumgartner in the sum of $15,000 and verdict for plaintiff James A. Baumgartner in the sum of $2,500. He requests judgments notwithstanding such verdicts or, in the alternative, order of retrial.

In Monaghan v. Pavsner, 347 Mich 511, and later in Houseman v. Walt Neal, Inc., 368 Mich 631, judgments for correspondingly situated plaintiffs were affirmed as against demands for judgments notwithstanding the respective verdicts. Affirmance in each instance…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cebulak v. LewisMichigan Supreme Court · 1948
  2. Hatter v. Dodge Bros.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
  3. Petrosky v. DziurmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Monaghan v. PavsnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1956
  5. Houseman v. Walt Neal, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1962

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. People v. JacksonMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Fout v. DietzMichigan Supreme Court · 1977
  3. American National Bank & Trust Co. v. ModdermanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1972
  4. Rockwell v. Hillcrest Country Club, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1970
  5. Phillips v. PhillipsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970

5 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