Turfe v. Intihar

Michigan Court of Appeals

Turfe v. Intihar

195 N.W.2d 773, 38 Mich. App. 144, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1548

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 24, 1972

DocketDocket No. 10253

StatusPublished

This text of 195 N.W.2d 773 (Turfe v. Intihar) 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

Turfe v. Intihar, 195 N.W.2d 773, 38 Mich. App. 144, 1972 Mich. App. LEXIS 1548 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff, Fred Turfe, received a jury judgment for $818.50 against defendant, Thomas Intihar, in an automobile negligence action.

On appeal plaintiff raises the issue that the trial court abused its discretion by restricting plaintiff’s [145]*145rebuttal medical testimony. We find that the proffered rebuttal testimony could have been offered in plaintiff’s main case.

It is tbe general rule that whether evidence which could have been offered before resting may be given in rebuttal is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. An examination of the record does not demonstrate any abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. People v Finnister, 33 Mich App 283 (1971); Lexchin v Mathews, 269 Mich 120 (1934); People v Utter, 217 Mich 74 (1921); and Beebe v Koshnic, 55 Mich 604 (1885).

Affirmed.

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