Koepel v. St. Joseph Hospital
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.
The question posed for current review was dealt with below as in syllabi 4 and 5 outlined (8 Mich App 609, 610). It is whether the technical misstatement of plaintiff’s counsel, made in closing jury argument (“We subpoenaed it [the operating table] but it did not show up.”), constituted reversible error.
We hold it did not for two reasons. One is that the quoted error of counsel did not rise to any plane of prejudice according to the standard of regularly cited Dikeman v. Arnold (1890), 83 Mich 218. The other is that the defendant failed to save this question for review, either by motion for…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Mayo v. WrightMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- Steudle v. Yellow & Checker Cab & Transfer Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
- Kujawski v. Boyne Mountain Lodge, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1967
- Andrews v. Tamarack Mining Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Dikeman v. ArnoldMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- People v. MorrinMichigan Court of Appeals · 1971
- Reetz v. Kinsman Marine Transit Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1982
- People v. RussellMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970
- Graham v. RyersonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
- Kirk v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1985
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.