Legal Opinion · Dissent

Callihan v. Talkowski

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1963No. Calendar 41, Docket 49,429Published

1DissentKelly, J.

The trial court found that “the statement in the advertisement did not enter pnto the transaction as a motivating cause and inducement of this sale.” The record sustains such a *7finding and this finding was supported by the- plaintiff’s own testimony, as well as many other facts, in addition to what happened at the time of the transaction in attorney McNamara’s office that culminated in the written agreement.

Plaintiff Gerald D. Callihan had for 2 years attended the school of business administration at Central Michigan at Mount Pleasant and Michigan State University, and was a man of business…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Noyce v. RossMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
  2. Lynes v. J. R. Heineman & Sons, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1961
  3. Gocha v. FetterolfMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
  4. Houghton v. RobertsMichigan Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Merrill v. ShumwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1962

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API