Legal Opinion

Dikeman v. Arnold

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 14, 1890PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Error to St. Joseph. (Loveridge, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in the former reports of the case.

1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.

It will be unnecessary to state the facts in this case. It has been here twice before, and will be found reported in 71 Mich. 656, and 78 Id. 455.

The plaintiffs have recovered judgment three times in the court, below, upon substantially the same state of facts. In the opinions of this Court when the case was here before, the law applicable io the pleadings and the facts involved was pointed out in. detail, and the trial court seems to have followed these opinions fully and fairly. We are not disposed to question or discuss the wisdom or legality of our former holdings or rulings upon any…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Dikeman v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Dikeman v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Riley v. ConnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Hayes v. ColemanMichigan Supreme Court · 1953
  2. Koepel v. St. Joseph HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 1968
  3. Kujawski v. Boyne Mountain Lodge, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1967
  4. Wheeler v. JenisonMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
  5. Leland v. FordMichigan Supreme Court · 1930

4 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