Legal Opinion
Husted v. Consumers Power Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided June 7, 1965No. Calendar 10, 11, Docket 50,772, 50,773PublishedCited by 121 opinions
1Per curiam
One of our new rules of court is headed “Third-Party Practice.” It is cited properly as GCR 1963, 204. Under its auspices appellant Hertel-Deyo, employer of plaintiff Claude A. Husted up to the time of sustenance by the latter of personal injuries upon which he declares, was drawn ex parte into these consolidated Midland county lawsuits. Hertel-Deyo moved promptly for summary dismissal of the primary defendant’s third-party complaints and, upon leave granted, reviews an order *45denying said motion. The order of denial is quoted in full, infra.
Plaintiff Claude A. Husted declared under the 1952…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Ryan Stevedoring Co. v. Pan-Atlantic Steamship Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Platt v. Union Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Westchester Lighting Co. v. Westchester County Small Estates Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Baltimore Transit Co. v. State Rx Rel. SchrieferCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1944
- Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1915
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by121 opinions
- Dale v. WhitemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1972
- Bosak v. HutchinsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
- People v. AdamsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
- Wayne County Civil Service Commission v. Board of SupervisorsMichigan Supreme Court · 1971
- Downie v. Kent Products, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
116 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.