Legal Opinion

Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Geleynse

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1928No. Docket No. 34PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). It is first insisted that as matter of law osteopaths are not physicians, hence the answer to questions 17 and 19 are not false. But in both questions the words “physician” and “practitioner” are used, and turning to the act regulating the practice of osteopathy (2 Comp. Laws 1915, § 6740 et seq.) it will be noted that they are referred to in the title as “practitioners” and in the body of the act as osteopathic “physicians.” To the average layman they and the “regulars” are all doctors who are consulted in case of illness, and it is doubtful if he ever makes in his…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York v. Hilton-GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
  2. Brown v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Blumenthal v. Berkshire Life-InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Plumb v. Penn Mutual Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Pudritzky v. Supreme Lodge Knights of HonorMichigan Supreme Court · 1889

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State Bank & Trust Co. v. Connecticut General Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
  2. Great Northern Life Ins. Co. v. VinceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
  3. Ranger, Inc. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. Of United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952
  4. Chamberlain v. National Life & Accident Ins.Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1934
  5. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. v. NalbantCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941

9 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