Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Bay City Street Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 16, 1894PublishedCited by 20 opinions

Error to Bay. (Cobb, J.) Case. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in 80 Mich.. 77.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

1. The plaintiffs in this case were also some *143of the complainants in Taylor v. Raihvay Co., 80 Mich. 77. The conditions under which the defendant was authorized to lay its track upon the street in question were there settled. The doctrine there established is stare decisis, and cannot be reviewed in this suit. That case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, from which it has been dismissed. Plaintiffs instituted this suit to recover damages for the construction and use of the railway opposite their premises, situated on the corner of Third and Washington streets. By the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh, Fort Wayne & Chicago Railway Co. v. SwinneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Hobart v. Milwaukee City RailroadWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Walrath v. Redfield.New York Court of Appeals · 1858
  4. Lucas v. WattlesMichigan Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Taylor v. Bay City Street Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890

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

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. Heimann v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1947
  2. Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. HW Nelson Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1941
  3. Wilson v. Doehler-Jarvis Division of National Lead Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1960
  4. Atlanta & Birmingham A. L. Ry. v. BrownSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
  5. Thompson Towing & Wrecking Ass'n v. McGregorCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1913

15 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