Legal Opinion · Dissent

Carroll v. Preferred Risk Insurance

Illinois Supreme Court

Decided March 24, 1966No. 39421Published

1DissentJustice Schaefer

The majority opinion correctly states, “The critical issue posed on this appeal is whether or not the third party, John Mimms, was insured for liability with Adams Mutual Insurance Company at the time of the accident.” Curiously, however, neither John Mimms nor the Adams Mutual Insurance Company is a party to this action. John Bolton, special deputy liquidator of the Adams Mutual Insurance Company, was named as a party defendant but the summons was returned “not found” as to him. Mimms was not named as a party defendant. In my opinion the trial court should have directed that these parties be…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  2. Insurance Co. v. HigginbothamSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  3. Western & Southern Life Insurance v. TomasunIllinois Supreme Court · 1934
  4. McKee v. Continental Ins. Co.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1950
  5. Palmer v. Bull Dog Auto InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1920

8 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