Legal Opinion

Bushouse v. Brom

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 21, 1941No. Docket No. 77, Calendar No. 41,454PublishedCited by 34 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.

I am not in accord in holding that the judgment entered in the circuit court should be affirmed. This is an automobile case, tried before the court without a jury. Defendant was found liable and judgment entered accordingly. This appeal by defendant followed. The trial judge based decision upon his holding that, under the law of Virginia, where the accident happened, plaintiff was a passenger for hire, and not a guest passenger. This controlling holding was erroneous.

The parties agree that the so-called guest passenger statute of Virginia, so far as its application to the instant case is…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Foley v. McDonaldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1933
  2. Hale v. . HaleSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1941
  3. Gale v. WilberSupreme Court of Virginia · 1934
  4. Perkins v. Great Central Transport Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
  5. Poole v. KelleySupreme Court of Virginia · 1934

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

3Cited by34 opinions

  1. White v. KingCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1966
  2. Hasbrook v. WingateOhio Supreme Court · 1949
  3. Duncan v. HutchinsonOhio Supreme Court · 1942
  4. Fountain v. TidwellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955
  5. McDougald v. CoueySupreme Court of Florida · 1942

29 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