WILCOX ET AL. v. HUNT ET AL

3 Citing cases

  1. Welch v. George

    19 P.3d 675 (Colo. 2000)   Cited 10 times
    In Welch, the court concluded that a loss of consortium claim under the No-Fault Act was derivative, such that the loss of consortium plaintiff was required to prove that the medical costs sustained by the injured spouse met the Act's monetary threshold (rather than allowing the spouse to aggregate both the injured spouse's medical costs and his own consortium injuries). It justified this conclusion by noting the No-Fault Act's "intent [of] eliminating minor tort claims" and providing redress only to those "who have suffered serious injuries."

    Absent a statute, a state court cannot compel the attendance of a nonresident witness who is not present in the state. See C.R.C.P. 45(e)("A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a deposition, hearing or trial may be served any place within the state.") (emphasis added); Wilcox v. Hunt, 38 U.S. 378 (1839); Minnesota ex rel. Minnesota Att'y Gen. v. Dist. Court, 395 P.2d 601 (Colo. 1964); Solliday v. Dist. Court, 313 P.2d 1000 (Colo.

  2. Bologna Brothers v. Morrissey

    154 So. 2d 445 (La. Ct. App. 1963)

    Another familiar rule in the conflict of laws is that the law of place where a contract is sought to be enforced will govern as to remedy. Wilcox v. Hunt, 1839, 38 U.S. 378, 13 Pet. 378, 10 L.Ed. 209; Hamilton v. Glassell, C.C.A.La., 1932, 57 F.2d 1032; Jackson v. Tiernan, 1840, 15 La. 485. It is recognized that procedural law is remedial in character.

  3. Bologna Bros. v. Morrissey

    154 So. 2d 455 (La. Ct. App. 1963)   Cited 8 times

    Another familiar rule in the conflict of laws is that the law of place where a contract is sought to be enforced will govern as to remedy. Wilcox v. Hunt, 1839, 38 U.S. 378, 13 Pet. 378, 10 L.Ed. 209; Hamilton v. Glassell, C.C.A.La., 1932, 57 F.2d 1032; Jackson v. Tiernan, 1840, 15 La. 485. It is recognized that procedural law is remedial in character.