Legal Opinion

Ballance v. Dunnington

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 28, 1929No. Docket No. 42, Calendar No. 34,046PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSharpe, J.

The facts in this case were quite fully stated on review of the judgment first rendered, 241 Mich. 383. Another trial has been had, resulting in a verdict for plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was denied and judgment entered on the verdict. Defendant seeks review by writ of error.

The testimony differs so little from that submitted at the former trial, except as to the number of witnesses called, that a review thereof seems unnecessary. It was there said, “We think the evidence presented an issue of fact for the jury.” A reading of the record now before us leads to the same conclusion.

There…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Ballance v. DunningtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  2. In re Merriman's AppealMichigan Supreme Court · 1896
  3. McConnell v. ElliottMichigan Supreme Court · 1928
  4. Ewing v. LamphereMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  5. Spencer v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1915

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. People v. PizzinoMichigan Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Grist v. Upjohn CompanyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1969
  3. People v. SteeneckMichigan Supreme Court · 1929
  4. Patterson v. JacobsMichigan Supreme Court · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API