Legal Opinion · Dissent

Janiszewski v. Behrmann

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided March 1, 1956No. Docket 8, Calendar 46,526PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1DissentSmith, J.

This case arises out of an allegedly irregular execution sale. The amended declaration was framed in 3 counts. The first was captioned “Trespass on the Case for Damages” and the second “Trespass on the Case Upon Promises.” The third set up the “Common Counts.” Upon motion, the trial court dismissed the amended declaration on the ground that the suit had been barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff-appellant took a general appeal. We will, hereinafter, upon this appeal so arising, presume to be true all of plaintiff-appellant’s well-pleaded allegations.

This is what happened:…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Schmidt v. Merchants Despatch Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
  2. Byxbie v. . WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
  3. Moore v. MandlebaumMichigan Supreme Court · 1860
  4. Nelson & Witt v. Texas Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  5. Matthys v. DonelsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1917

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. William E. Bufalino v. The Michigan Bell Telephone CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1969
  2. American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd.California Court of Appeal · 2014
  3. Gilbert v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
  4. Grebner v. RunyonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Tillman v. Great Lakes Truck Center, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007

13 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