Legal Opinion

Urtel v. City of Flint

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 2, 1899PublishedCited by 11 opinions

Error to Genesee; Wisner, J. Case by Charles Urtel against the city of Flint for personal injuries. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

The plaintiff recovered a verdict and judgment for $450 for injuries sustained by stepping into a hole in a sidewalk, which, it is alleged, the defendant city allowed to become and remain in a dangerous condition. The averment as to the fault of the city is as follows:

“By allowing one of the planks of said sidewalk to be- • *66come broken and splintered, thereby making a depression on the surface of said walk of from four to six inches wide, and fifteen to eighteen inches in length, and about two to three inches in depth, which depression, when subjected to the weight of a person’s foot and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Lowell v. Township of WatertownMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Weisse v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
  3. Crites v. City of New RichmondWisconsin Supreme Court · 1897
  4. Schwingschlegl v. City of MonroeMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Sias v. Village of Reed CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1894

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. People v. SundlingMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Northrup v. City of PontiacMichigan Supreme Court · 1909
  3. Cornell v. City of YpsilantiMichigan Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Styles v. Village of DecaturMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  5. Hunter v. Village of DurandMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

6 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