Dolan v. O.M. Scott Sons

4 Citing cases

  1. Ureste v. West Bloomfield Twp.

    No. 303976 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 21, 2012)

    MCR 2.116(I)(5); MCR 2.118(A)(2); MCR 7.216(A)(1). Dolan v OM Scott & Sons, 23 Mich App 13, 14; 178 NW2d 108 (1970). --------

  2. Belobradich v. Sarnsethsiri

    131 Mich. App. 241 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 11 times
    In Belobradich v Sarnsethsiri, 131 Mich. App. 241; 346 N.W.2d 83 (1983), plaintiff's expert witness testified that defendant violated the standard of orthopedic care by closing the fascia without allowing for drainage of the leg and by using an inadequate capillary/pinch test for circulation.

    Plaintiffs were obviously not entitled to litigate issues or claims not raised in the pleadings. Dolan v O M Scott Sons, 23 Mich. App. 13; 178 N.W.2d 108 (1970). GCR 1963, 111.1(1) requires that the complaint contain "such specific averments as are necessary reasonably to inform the adverse party of the nature of the cause he is called upon to defend".

  3. Marietta v. Cliffs Ridge, Inc.

    385 Mich. 364 (Mich. 1971)   Cited 50 times
    In Marietta v. Cliffs Ridge, Inc., 385 Mich. 364, 373, 189 N.W.2d 208 (1971), the court held that it was a question of fact to be left to the jury whether a ski facility was negligent in using 1 1/2-inch sapling poles as slalom gate markers rather than bamboo or fiber glass poles.

    Adherence to theory of trial or argument.", and the Court's thorough review of the reasons for this appellate rule which came to record in Peckinpaugh v. H.W. Noble Co. (1927), 238 Mich. 464, 472, 473. For the most recent application of this rule in the Court of Appeals, see the personal injury action of Dolan v. O.M. Scott Sons (1970), 23 Mich. App. 13, 14. In Peckinpaugh the Court posed its question, as I do here (p 472):

  4. State v. Corron

    73 N.H. 434 (N.H. 1905)   Cited 54 times
    In State v. Corron, 73 N.H. 434, 462, involving similar procedure, it was said that there was "in substance a trial, — the facts being ascertained from the statements of counsel conceded to be correct, instead of from the testimony of witnesses."

    The existence or non-existence of a right in either party to have the judgment in the prior suit re-examined, upon appeal or writ of error, cannot in any case control this inquiry. . . . Looking at the reasons upon which the rule rests, its operation cannot be restricted to those cases which, after final judgment or decree, may be taken by appeal or writ of error to a court of appellate jurisdiction." Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U.S. 252, 261; Dolan v. Scott, 25 Wn. 214. The general purpose of the act was to secure to the state prompt and efficient remedies for action beyond or without its provisions.