Sylvester v. Messler

Sixth Circuit

Sylvester v. Messler

351 F.2d 472, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 3

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 10, 1965

DocketNos. 16106, 16107

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 351 F.2d 472 (Sylvester v. Messler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sylvester v. Messler, 351 F.2d 472, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 3 (6th Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These are appeals from dismissal of plaintiffs-appellants’ complaints in diversity actions resulting from an automobile accident. The United States District Judge dismissed these suits on motion because of plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the time and service requirements of the Michigan Statute of Limitations, Mich.Stat.Ann., 1962 Rev., §§ 27A.5805 and 27A.5856.

The District Judge held that Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530, 69 S.Ct. 1233, 93 L.Ed. 1520 (1949), mandated application of the state limitation provisions cited above. We agree with Judge Kaess’ brief but well-reasoned opinion, Sylvester et al. v. Messier, 246 F.Supp. 1 (E.D.Mich. 1964).

At oral argument and by supplemental briefs, appellants suggested to this court, however, that a United States Supreme Court case decided a year after the District Court opinion referred to above had overruled the Ragan case. We have examined the opinion of Chief Justice Warren in Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965), and conclude that although it refers to and cites Ragan, it carefully refrains from overruling same. The instant case appears to us to be directly governed by Ragan.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

These are appeals from dismissal of plaintiffs-appellants’ complaints in diversity actions resulting from an automobile accident. The United States District Judge dismissed these suits on motion because of plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the time and service requirements of the Michigan Statute of Limitations, Mich.Stat.Ann., 1962 Rev., §§ 27A.5805 and 27A.5856.

The District Judge held that Ragan v. Merchants Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U.S. 530, 69 S.Ct. 1233, 93 L.Ed. 1520 (1949), mandated application of the state limitation provisions cited above. We agree with Judge Kaess’ brief but well-reasoned opinion, Sylvester et al. v. Messier, 246 F.Supp. 1 (E.D.Mich. 1964).

At oral argument and by supplemental briefs, appellants suggested to this court, however, that a United States Supreme Court case decided a year after the District Court opinion referred to above had overruled the Ragan case. We have examined the opinion of Chief Justice Warren in Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460, 85 S.Ct. 1136, 14 L.Ed.2d 8 (1965), and conclude that although it refers to and cites Ragan, it carefully refrains from overruling same. The instant case appears to us to be directly governed by Ragan.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

351 F.2d 472, 9 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 3, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sylvester-v-messler-ca6-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack