Legal Opinion
Schoener v. Continental Motors Corp.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided January 9, 1961No. Docket 74, Calendar 48,719PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtCarr, J.
This case involves the interpretation and application of certain provisions of PA 1947, No 329, as amended, otherwise known as the Michigan code of escheats. * The bill of complaint was filed on October 18,1956, the plaintiff.being the public administrator duly appointed and acting in Muskegon county. By order of the probate court of said county he was appointed administrator of the combined estates of certain named individuals described as disappeared or missing persons for periods in excess of 7 years, which named persons are indicated as de fendants in the canse with the Continental Motors…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Estin v. EstinSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
- Anderson National Bank v. LuckettSupreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Harris v. BalkSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Farmers & Merchants Bank of Monroe v. Federal Reserve Bank of RichmondSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Standard Oil Co. v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1951
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Marlin v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
- State v. Union Bag-Camp Paper Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1961
- Brigitte Hendershot v. Terry StantonCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2025
- Dennis O'Connor v. Rachael EubanksCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2026
- Lisa Kemerer v. State of MichiganMichigan Court of Appeals · 2024