Legal Opinion

Poikanen v. Thomas Furnace Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 10, 1924No. Docket No. 27PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtFellows, J.

(after stating the facts). At the close of plaintiff’s proofs and again at the close of all the proofs defendant’s counsel asked for a directed verdict. It is here earnestly insisted that both motions should have been granted, and the claim is here made, as was made in the court below, that the testimony establishes that at defendant’s mine and generally throughout the iron mining district, it is the uniform custom for the “landers” to give the signals to move the cage and miners were forbidden at this mine and at others from giving the signals or “ringing themselves down” as it is sometimes…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. O'Brien v. Albert A. Albrecht Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919
  2. Kricinovich v. American Car & Foundry Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Foster v. RinzMichigan Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Myers v. Wadsworth Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
  5. Lonier v. Ann Arbor Savings BankMichigan Supreme Court · 1908

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. MarvinMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
  2. Klanseck v. Anderson Sales & Service, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Smith v. JonesMichigan Supreme Court · 1969
  4. Klanseck v. Anderson Sales & Service, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  5. Kolbas v. American Boston Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936

6 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