Hanik v. Wilczynski

Michigan Court of Appeals

Hanik v. Wilczynski

33 Mich. App. 268

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 28, 1971

DocketDocket No. 9340

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 33 Mich. App. 268 (Hanik v. Wilczynski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hanik v. Wilczynski, 33 Mich. App. 268 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

This is an automobile negligence case. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiffs appeal, claiming that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Since plaintiffs did not move for a new trial on that ground we cannot now order one. Armstrong v. Woodland Mutual Fire Insurance Company (1955), 342 Mich 666; Nadolski v. Peters (1952), 332 Mich 182; Riber v. Morris (1937), 279 Mich 344.

Plaintiffs next argue that it was error for the trial judge to admit, over objection, an unsigned and unverified complaint filed in a previous personal injury action for the purpose of impeaching Peter Hanik’s statement that he had never before suffered any back, neck, or spine injuries. This issue is controlled by Schwartz v. Triff (1966), 2 Mich App 379, which held that such evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam:

This is an automobile negligence case. The jury returned a verdict of no cause of action. Plaintiffs appeal, claiming that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.

Since plaintiffs did not move for a new trial on that ground we cannot now order one. Armstrong v. Woodland Mutual Fire Insurance Company (1955), 342 Mich 666; Nadolski v. Peters (1952), 332 Mich 182; Riber v. Morris (1937), 279 Mich 344.

Plaintiffs next argue that it was error for the trial judge to admit, over objection, an unsigned and unverified complaint filed in a previous personal injury action for the purpose of impeaching Peter Hanik’s statement that he had never before suffered any back, neck, or spine injuries. This issue is controlled by Schwartz v. Triff (1966), 2 Mich App 379, which held that such evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes.

Affirmed. Costs to defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Mich. App. 268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hanik-v-wilczynski-michctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack