Legal Opinion · Dissent

Disner v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Decided January 30, 1984No. 82-1078Published

1DissentContie, Circuit Judge

I am of the opinion that the district court correctly instructed the jury on Disner’s burden of proof under Michigan law. I also conclude that, to the degree the question is doubtful, our standard of review in cases of this type requires that we affirm the district court. Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.

I

The majority cites four Michigan cases for the proposition that “clear and convincing evidence” is needed to establish fraud. One of these four cases, Youngs v. Tuttle Hill Corp., 373 Mich. 145, 128 N.W.2d 472 (1964), is readily distinguishable. Youngs was an action on the equity…

2Cases cited37 opinions

  1. Hi-Way Motor Co. v. International Harvester Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Candler v. HeighoMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  3. Randolph v. New England Mutual Life InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1975
  4. Watkins v. WallaceMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
  5. Higgins v. LawrenceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981

32 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