Otto Taylor Construction Co. v. Saginaw Circuit Judge

Michigan Supreme Court

Otto Taylor Construction Co. v. Saginaw Circuit Judge

126 N.W.2d 701, 372 Mich. 376

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 1, 1964

DocketCalendar 30, Docket 49,808

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 126 N.W.2d 701 (Otto Taylor Construction Co. v. Saginaw Circuit Judge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Otto Taylor Construction Co. v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 126 N.W.2d 701, 372 Mich. 376 (Mich. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

*377 Black, J.

This is an original petition for man-damns, companion to and submitted with J. A. Utley Co. v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 372 Mich 367. The principal difference between the Utley Case and this one is that the Taylor discovery order calls for production of statements made to adjusters by the plaintiff in negligence herself; whereas the Utley order calls principally for discovery of statements and documents made or prepared by persons other than the suing plaintiffs.

The presented questions are controlled as to answer by LaCroix v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 368 Mich 321, and, so far as concerns the issue of privileged “work product,” by Wilson v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 370 Mich 404, plus the mentioned Utley Case.

Writ denied. No costs.

The trial court, counsel for all parties in this case as well as in the Utley Case, and the profession generally, are respectfully advised that the Court is considering an amendment of GCR 1963, 310, the purpose of which in the main will be that of eliminating, from the scope of Rule 310 only, the so-called admissibility qualification. Court and counsel may therefore, until advised otherwise, pursue the practice prescribed by former Court Rule No 40 (1945), so far as concerns the discovery of books, papers, documents, accounts, letters, photographs, exhibits, or tangible things not privileged within the Wilson and Utley Cases.

Kavanagh, C. J.,. and Dethmers, Kelly, Souris, Smith, O’Hara, and Adams, JJ., concurred.

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

*377 Black, J.

This is an original petition for man-damns, companion to and submitted with J. A. Utley Co. v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 372 Mich 367. The principal difference between the Utley Case and this one is that the Taylor discovery order calls for production of statements made to adjusters by the plaintiff in negligence herself; whereas the Utley order calls principally for discovery of statements and documents made or prepared by persons other than the suing plaintiffs.

The presented questions are controlled as to answer by LaCroix v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 368 Mich 321, and, so far as concerns the issue of privileged “work product,” by Wilson v. Saginaw Circuit Judge, 370 Mich 404, plus the mentioned Utley Case.

Writ denied. No costs.

The trial court, counsel for all parties in this case as well as in the Utley Case, and the profession generally, are respectfully advised that the Court is considering an amendment of GCR 1963, 310, the purpose of which in the main will be that of eliminating, from the scope of Rule 310 only, the so-called admissibility qualification. Court and counsel may therefore, until advised otherwise, pursue the practice prescribed by former Court Rule No 40 (1945), so far as concerns the discovery of books, papers, documents, accounts, letters, photographs, exhibits, or tangible things not privileged within the Wilson and Utley Cases.

Kavanagh, C. J.,. and Dethmers, Kelly, Souris, Smith, O’Hara, and Adams, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 N.W.2d 701, 372 Mich. 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otto-taylor-construction-co-v-saginaw-circuit-judge-mich-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack