ALLERS v WILLIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-379 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA -~ - THEODORE R. ALLERS, Plaintiff and Respondent, VS. RICHARD JOSEPH WILLIS, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead Honorable Robert Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Warden, Christiansen, Johnson Montana & Berg, Kalispell, For Respondent: Hoyt and Trieweiler, Great Falls, Montana Submitted on briefs: February 25, 1982 Decided : 151 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The r e s p o n d e n t , T h e o d o r e A l l e r s , b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l District of t h e S t a t e of Montana, in and for the County of Flathead, by c o m p l a i n t d a t e d J u n e 1 8 , 1979, a l l e g i n g t h a t on J a n u a r y 21, 1979, he was injured and sustained property damage in a c o l l i s i o n b e t w e e n h i s c a r a n d a t r u c k d r i v e n by a p p e l l a n t , Richard Respondent's Willis. complaint alleged that the c a u s e o f t h e a c c i d e n t was t h e n e g l i g e n c e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t i n driving h i s vehicle. On May 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e c o m p l a i n t was a m e n d e d , and t h e r e s p o n d e n t r e q u e s t e d t h a t p u n i t i v e damages be awarded. On J u l y 2 , 1980, appellant counterclaimed, alleging t h a t t h e r e s p o n d e n t had a s s a u l t e d him i m m e d i a t e l y a f t e r t h e accident. The summary judgment negligent cause, District in per se, damages Court July but and granted respondent's 1980 to denied all as the the motion matters motion appellant as concerning to for being proximate comparative ney 1i g e n c e . A j u r y t r i a l was h e l d May 4 t h r o u g h 7 , jury rendered a i n t h e amount o f special verdict $128,000 1 9 8 1 , and t h e i n favor of t h e respondent a c t u a l damages and $15,000 puni- t i v e damages f o r a t o t a l judgment o f $143,000. On May 2 2 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e a p p e l l a n t moved t h e c o u r t f o r a new t r i a l o n g r o u n d s o f e x c e s s i v e d a m a g e s , insufficiency of t h e e v i d e n c e t o j u s t i f y t h e damages and e r r o r i n law. District Court denied t h e motion, The and a p p e l l a n t a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t on J u l y 1 3 , 1981. At approximately 12:15 a.m., on January 21, 1979, respondent, pickup Theodore truck Willis. being The driven accident Columbia F a l l s , Cafe. Allers, was by struck the occurred Montana, near a from behind appellant, on by Richard Highway U.S, restaurant 40 a J. in known a s T o d d ' s The r o a d i s s t r a i g h t , l e v e l , paved and w e l l l i g h t e d , b u t was v e r y i c y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a c c i d e n t . Allers, at t h e time of the accident, was traveling e a s t a p p r o x i m a t e l y t w e n t y t o t w e n t y - f i v e m i l e s p e r h o u r and was p r e p a r i n g coffee. to turn right i n t o Todd's Cafe f o r H e was s t r u c k from b e h i n d , a cup of and t h e f o r c e was s u f - f i c i e n t t o t e a r t h e f r o n t s e a t m o u n t s from t h e f l o o r where they were into a bolted steel vehicle and pole was to propel the 011 totaled, h i s car s i d e of and the at least road. appellant's 120 f e e t Respondent's truck sustained a p p r o x i m a t e l y $ 1 , 0 0 0 i n damages. Willis, by his a l c o h o l i c beverages collision. between drinks He own steadily for testified t w e l v e and admission, i n t h e eight-hour eight that eighteen had he beers period been hours had drinking prior consumed and at to somewhere least two mixed before the collision, b l o o d a l c o h o l c o n t e n t was found t o be the . 2 0 % when a His t e s t was a d m i n i s t e r e d a t t h e N o r t h V a l l e y H o s p i t a l i n Columbia F a l l s . The c o l l i s i o n and the events leading up t o i t were w i t n e s s e d by Rhonda C o v e r d a l e , who was d r i v i n g h e r c a r e a s t on Highway accelerated behind respondent, had appellant 40 pulled onto rapidly, the She testified highway without f i s h t a i l e d and was g o i n g that the appellant m i l e s per did not use hour. his Also, brakes the stopping, about f i v e m i l e s p e r hour a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c o l l i s i o n . l i m i t was t w e n t y - f i v e that forty- The s p e e d she t e s t i f i e d or attempt to s w e r v e o u t o f t h e way. Immediately their vehicles af t e r and the headed collision, towards both men exited A scuffle each o t h e r . e n s u e d and A l l e r s s t r u c k W i l l i s i n t h e s h o u l d e r . then ended up on hold t h e ground down W i l l i s who was w i t h A l l e r s on flailing his Both men top trying arms and to swearing. A l l e r s , Rhonda C o v e r d a l e and M i c h a e l S t o t t s , t h e o f f i c e r who investigated grossly W i l l i s the accident, intoxicated. had a "belligerent Officer reputation and all Stotts in possibly testified the that also testified community violent" after he was W i l l i s of had that becoming a lot to drink. Allers nently were alleged injured alleged secondary by to to that the be soft his back and neck automobile c o l l i s i o n . "cervical tissue were The lumbrosachal and swelling, and perma- injuries radiculitis injury to the l i g a m e n t s and j o i n t c a p s u l e s i n t h o s e r e g i o n s of t h e s p i n e . " A s a r e s u l t , A l l e r s a l l e g e d t h a t he w i l l c o n t i n u e t o e x p e r i - e n c e p a i n f o r t h e r e s t o f h i s l i f e whenever he p a r t i c i p a t e s in strenuous a c t i v i t i e s . a t t h e time of A l l e r s was t w e n t y - s e v e n t h e a c c i d e n t and had been years old a manual laborer his entire adult l i f e . Allers months a f t e r The when 1979, he not able to go back to work until six t h e a c c i d e n t when h i s p h y s i c i a n r e l e a s e d him. evidence pain was revealed a t work fell and and that Allers t h r e e months reinjured was still later, h i s back. He experiencing on O c t o b e r has not 14, worked since. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r d i s c u s s i o n a r e : 1. Whether the District Court erred by excluding e v i d e n c e o f a pending w o r k e r s ' compensation c l a i m ? 2. Whether the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d in dismissing a p p e l l a n t ' s counterclaim for battery? 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d in instructing t h e j u r y concerning l o s s of earning c a p a c i t y ? 4. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d in instructing t h e j u r y on p u n i t i v e damages? Whether t h e v e r d i c t was e x c e s s i v e ? 5. The District Court properly conce rn i n g a pending w or k e r s ' rnajority i m p a c t of of jurisdictions allowing t i f f ' s pending workers' the P o z z i e v. 337 N.E.2d evidence that the The v a s t prejudicial r e c e i v e evidence of a plain- compensation c l a i m v a s t l y outweighs Mike S m i t h , 450. ruled 77 A.L.R.2d probative value. 234; to the compensation claim. have a jury excluded Inc. 1154, 1156; 47 A.L.R.3d ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 33 I l l . A p p . 3 d I t h a s been s t a t e d a t 77 A.L.R.2d 343, a t 1156, " G e n e r a l l y , i t h a s been h e l d t o c o n s t i t u t e e r r o r , r e q u i r i n g a r e v e r s a l o r new t r i a l , t o bring to the jury's attention the f a c t t h a t the p l a i n t i f f in a personal i n j u r y or death a c t i o n is e n t i t l e d t o workmen's c o m p e n s a t i o n benefits. The c o u r t s h a v e r e a s o n e d t h a t s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n would t e n d t o p r e j u d i c e t h e j u r y and i n f l u e n c e t h e i r v e r d i c t , e i t h e r a s t o l i a b i l i t y o r damages, a s s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n i s o r d i n a r i l y i m m a t e r i a l and i r r e l e v a n t . " H e r e , t h e f a c t t h a t A l l e r s r e i n j u r e d h i s b a c k a t work some ten months after the accident was i n t o e v i d e n c e , b u t t h e f a c t t h a t h e had properly admitted a pending w o r k e r s' c o r n p e n s a t i o n c l a i m was c l e a r l y i n a d m i s s i b l e . I t was n o t r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r when t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t dismissed a p p e l l a n t ' s counterclaim for battery. v. I t o h ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 160 Mont. "This Court, on a 461, 503 P.2d number of In Collins 36, t h i s Court held: occasions, has s t a t e d t h a t c a s e s and i s s u e s s h o u l d n o t he w i t h d r a w n from a j u r y u n l e s s r e a s o n a b l e and f a i r - m i n d e d men c o u l d r e a c h o n l y o n e c o n c l u s i o n from t h e f a c t s . P i c k e t t v . Kyger, 1 5 1 Mont. 87, 439 P.2d 57; B r i d g e s v . M o r i t z , 1 4 9 Mont. 273, 425 P.2d 721; H o l l a n d v . Konda, 1 4 2 Mont. 5 3 6 , 385 P.2d 272. Genuine i s s u e s o f f a c t s h o u l d be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y . H o w e v e r . w h e t h e r e v.....................o f a idence on b e h a l f p l a i n t i f f is s u f f i c i e n t t o t a k e a c a s e t o t h e j u r y .................................. t r i a l i s a que s t i o n of law f o r t h e j udge Lovas v , G e n e r a l M o t o r s Corp. (6 C r ) , 212 F.2d 805. A b a r e s c i n t i l l a of evidence is not sufficient to .....................................r e q u i r e submission t o t h e jury. Volume 2B, B a r r o n and H o l t z o f f , s e c t i o n 1 0 7 5 , and J o h n s o n v . C h i c a g o , Milwaukee and S t . P a u l Ry. Co., 7 1 Mont. 390, 230 P. 52." 503 P.2d a t 42. (Emphasis added.) . The o n l y e v i d e n c e t h a t a p p e l l a n t p r e s e n t e d at trial c o n c e r n i n g t h e a l l e g e d b a t t e r y and h i s r e s u l t i n g r i b i n j u r y was h i s own t e s t i m o n y . trial was contrary deposition. However, e v e n h i s t e s t i m o n y a t t h e to his statements in a previous I n t h e d e p o s i t i o n h e s t a t e d t h a t he had i n j u r e d h i s r i b s a s a r e s u l t of t h e c o l l i s i o n , n o t a s a r e s u l t o f a blow by respondent. Further, appellant did not call his p h y s i c i a n t o t h e s t a n d , and he r e f u s e d r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y r e q u e s t t o produce t h e p h y s i c i a n ' s medical r e p o r t . The r e c o r d was v o i d o f a n y c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t would l e a d a reasonable person t o b e l i e v e t h a t respondent caused appellant's r i b injury. frivolous, A p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m was " f a n c i f u l , gauzy o r merely s u s p i c i o u s " i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o him. (1980) , e v e n when Van Uden v . H e n d r i c k s e n - Mont. -, 615 P.2d 2 2 0 , 224, 37 St.Rep. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r when that the respondent failed 1431. instructing j u r y concerning impairment of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . contention construed the Appellant's t o p r o v e by l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e i n j u r i e s which h e r e c e i v e d were attributable to the automobile accident is w i t h o u t m e r i t . I m p a i r m e n t o f e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y and t h e b u r d e n t o p r o v e t h e same was w e l l d e f i n e d by t h i s C o u r t i n Thomas v . W h i t e s i d e ( 1 9 6 6 ) , 1 4 8 Mont. 394, 421 P.2d 449, where we s t a t e d : "Impairment of e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y is d i f f e r e n t from l o s s o f wages. I t is t h e permanent d i m i n u t i o n o f t h e a b i l i t y t o e a r n money i n the future, The l o s s i s a p a r t o f g e n e r a l damages which may b e i n f e r r e d f r o m t h e n a t u r e of t h e i n j u r y without proof of a c t u a l earni n g s o r income. P r o o f of t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n ' s previous health, age, occupation, s k i l l s , e d u c a t i o n , p r o b a b l e number o f p r o d u c t i v e y e a r s r e m a i n i n g , p h y s i c a l and m e n t a l i m p a i r ment p r o x i m a t e l y c a u s e d by t h e i n j u r y and similar factors are sufficient to infer a l o s s of an e s t a b l i s h e d e a r n i n g c a p a c i t y . C o n n o l l y v . Pre-Mixed C o n c r e t e Co., 49 C a l . 2 d 483, 319 P.2d 343; Murray v , Mossman, 52 Wash.2d 8 8 5 , 329 P.2d 1089; Jackson v. S o u t h w e s t e r n P u b l i c S e r v i c e Co., 6 6 N.M. 458, 421 P.2d a t 451. 349 P.2d 1829." The appellant cites Wilson L i n e s ( D . Mont. 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 6 6 F.Supp. v. Northland Greyhound 667, a s a u t h o r i t y f o r h i s contention t h a t t h e respondent f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a s u f f i c i e n t causal connection. The W i l s o n c a s e s t a t e s : "The g e n e r a l r u l e r e g a r d i n g t h e p r o o f r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between an a c c i d e n t and t h e i n j u r y c l a i m e d is s t a t e d by C o r p u s J u r i s Secundum a s f o l l o w s : 'Plaint i f f m u s t p r o v e by l e g a l l y s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t h a t a l l t h e i n j u r i e s f o r which he c l a i m s damages a r e p r o p e r l y a t t r i b u t a b l e , i n While a medical s e n s e , t o t h e a c c i d e n t . p l a i n t i f f need n o t e s t a b l i s h s u c h c a u s a l conn e c t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n t y , h e m u s t do s o w i t h r e a s o n a b l e c e r t a i n t y o r by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f the evidence, A mere g u e s s o r c o n j e c t u r e on the subject, expert or otherwise, is not s u f f i c i e n t , nor should d i f f i c u l t y i n establ i s h i n g t h e p r o x i m a t e c a u s e o f an i n j u r y prompt t h e c o u r t t o d i s p e n s e w i t h proof thereof; b u t t h e j u r y may i n f e r t h e c a u s e o f a n i n j u r y from t h e f a c t s p r o v e d , There can be no r e c o v e r y f o r an i n j u r y o r c o n d i t i o n which t h e e v i d e n c e shows m i g h t h a v e r e s u l t e d from two o r more c a u s e s , f o r o n l y one o f which d e f e n d a n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e . So, t o o , i t is n o t s u f f i c i e n t f o r one s e e k i n g damages f o r a c o n d i t i o n c l a i m e d t o h a v e r e s u l t e d from a n a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y t o show t h a t s u c h a c c i d e n t o r i n j u r y might o r could have caused t h e c o n d i t i o n ; o t h e r c a u s e s s h o u l d be e x c l u d e d . ' 25 C . J . S . Barnages s e c t i o n 1 6 2 , pp. 822-824." ( E m p h a s i s added.) 106 F.Supp. a t 675-676. Both Thomas and W i l s o n s t a t e t h a t an i n f e r e n c e c a n be drawn by t h e t r i e r o f f a c t a s t o t h e c a u s e o f an i n j u r y . t h i s case, t h e jury chose t o infer In from t h e e v i d e n c e p r e - s e n t e d t h a t t h e a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t was t h e d i r e c t c a u s e o f respondent's i n j u r i e s and we w i l l n o t s u p p l a n t t h e i r i n g s w i t h o n e o f o u r own. , 626 P.2d Lee ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Lauman v . 8 3 0 , 833, 38 S t . R e p . 499. findIvlont . R e s p o n d e n t may n o t have e s t a b l i s h e d a c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n w i t h c e r t a i n t y , b u t t h e trier of f a c t determined he had done c e r t a i n t y o r by a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f "with so reasonable t h e evidence." Wilson, supra. The jury was properly C o u r t on p u n i t i v e damages. instructed by the District Appellant's contention t h a t the j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n was i m p r o p e r b e c a u s e i t a l l o w e d t h e j u r y t o award punitive damages based ". . . r e c k l e s s n e s s , . . ." is c o n t r a r y t o t h e upon wantonness, o r malice of another overwhelming w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y . argument that the s e c t i o n 27-1-221, statute and Montana statute on the appellant's punitive damages, i s modeled a f t e r a s i m i l a r C a l i f o r n i a MCA, that, Further, therefore, ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 5 8 Cal.App.2d 517, the case 322 P.2d of 933, Gombos v. Ashe prevents a jury from a w a r d i n g p u n i t i v e damages f o r t h e a c t c o m p l a i n e d o f is only p a r t i a l l y correct. W h i l e i t is c o r r e c t t h a t t h e C a l i f o r n i a s t a t u t e and the Montana Gombos v . Ct. 854. of statute Ashe, are virtually s u p r a , was o v e r r u l e d Los A n g e l e s C t y . The identical, California i n Taylor v. ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 157 C a l . R p t r . Supreme Court the held in case of Superior 6 9 3 , 598 P.2d Taylor that anyone who v o l u n t a r i l y commenced and t h e r e a f t e r c o n t i n u e s t o consume alcol-iolic knowing that vehicle, beverages they to thereafter demonstrates such the be will a point of intoxication operating conscious and a motor deliberate d i s r e g a r d of t h e i n t e r e s t s o f o t h e r s , t h a t t h e i r c o n d u c t may be c a l l e d w i l l f u l o r wanton; accordingly, p u n i t i v e damages a r e recoverable i n a personal i n j u r y a c t i o n brought a g a i n s t an intoxicated driver. this Court's stated Mont principles i n Graham v . . -, 631 This reasoning concerning c o m p o r t s we11 w i t h punitive C l a r k s Fork N a t i o n a l P.2d 7 1 8 , 721, 38 St.Rep. damages. Bank We (1981), - 1 1 4 0 , 1143-1144: "To w a r r a n t t h e r e c o v e r y o f s u c h damages [ p u n i t i v e damages] t h e a c t c o m p l a i n e d o f m u s t n o t o n l y b e u n l a w f u l , b u t must a l s o p a r t a k e somewhat o f a c r i m i n a l o r wanton n a t u r e . And i t i s an a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l l y r e c o g n i z e d r u l e t h a t s u c h damages may be r e c o v e r e d i n c a s e s , a n d o n l y i n s u c h c a s e s , where t h e w r o n g f u l a c t c o m p l a i n e d o f i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d b y some such circumstances of aggravation a s w i l l f u l n e s s , wantonness, malice, o p p r e s s i o n , b r u t a l i t y , i n s u l t , recklessness, gross negligence, o r g r o s s f r a u d on t h e p a r t o f t h e d e f e n d a n t . 586.)" ( 8 R.C.L.585, See a l s o : Lee 830, 833, 38 St.Rep. ,Non t . -, 593 P.2d (Colo.App. 82 N.M. (1981) , 499; Lauman v . Butcher v. 743, 36 S t . R e p . 1 9 8 0 ) , 605 P.2d 7 3 9 , 487 P.2d was e x c e s s i v e of what numerous cases. 830; 167; 65 A.L.R.3d that is e r r o n e o u s . question Salvail Company ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 6 Mont. (1979), B u t l e r s v. Mince Whitman ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 656. the verdict in t h i s case an v. excessive Great 1 2 , 473 P.2d verdict Northern 5 4 9 , we h e l d : "The amount t o be awarded a s damages i s p r o p e r l y l e f t t o t h e j u r y and t h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e j u r y p a r t i c u l a r l y where, a s h e r e , t h e t r i a l c o u r t h a s a p p r o v e d t h e v e r d i c t by d e n y i n g a I t i s o n l y where t h e amount new t r i a l . .. - T h i s Court h a s addressed t h e constitutes In Petranek 922; S v e j c a r a v . A p p e l l a n t ' s argument -, 626 P.2d - Mont. in Railway awarded is s o g r o s s l y o u t o f p r o p o r t i o n t o t h e i n j u r y a s t o shock t h e c o n s c i e n c e t h a t t h i s Court w i l l intervene." 473 P.2d a t 5 6 0 , Again, Lee, s u p r a , we h e l d : i n Lauman v. "Our f u n c t i o n i n r e v i e w i n g t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f p r o o f of a c t u a l damages i s t o d e t e r m i n e whet h e r t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e in the record t o support the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . W must v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most e f a v o r a b l e t o Lauman, t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y b e l o w , and where t h e r e c o r d p r e s e n t s conf l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e , r e s o l v e d by t h e j u r y , t h i s from d i s t u r b i n g t h e Court is precluded verdict. This r u l e is p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e when t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s p a s s e d upon t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e e v i d e n c e on m o t i o n f o r new t r i a l and h a s u p h e l d i t s s u f f i c i e n c y . S t r o n g v . W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 4 Mont. 65, 68-69, 460 P.2d 9 0 , 92." 626 P.2d a t 833. See a l s o : Yates v. 1290; S m i t h v . is it 1 7 8 Mont. Kenosha Auto T r a n s p o r t ( D . C . Applying here, (1978), Hedges t h e above a u t h o r i t y t o clear that there was 488, 585 P.2d Mont. 1 9 6 4 ) , 226 the f a c t s presented substantial credible evidence t o support the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , and t h e v e r d i c t d i d not Court. "shock requested punitive the conscience" $52,116.34 damages, in and s h o u l d be awarded f o r fact that the m a t e l y $75,000 jury for of this compensatory left to the a total impairment of i n p u n i t i v e damages, and $52,116.34 is not damages, jury that The $143,000 earning (approxi- capacity, and $15,000 i n c o m p e n s a t o r y damages) s u f f i c i e n t grounds t o change t h e v e r d i c t . t h e amounts r e q u e s t e d in amount of the $25,000 earning capacity. impairment of awarded Respondent t h e amounts Indeed, received are not in appeal should be d i s c o r d , nor a r e t h e y e x c e s s i v e . Respondent contends that dismissed because t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s this insurer failed t o post a s u p e r s e d e a s bond f o r t h e f u l l amount o f t h e judgment. This contention is w i t h o u t m e r i t . The respondent's remedy for a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o p o s t a s u p e r s e d e a s bond i s t o e x e c u t e on t h e judgment. The f a c t t h a t a s u p e r s e d e a s bond was n o t p o s t e d d o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e r i g h t t o an a p p e a l . a p p e a l may b e moot i f t h e r e s p o n d e n t the judgment. Gallatin Trust ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 1 5 4 Mont. 1 7 0 , 461 P.2d The j udgment is a f f i rmed W concur : e Chief J u s t i c e & i s a b l e t o e x e c u t e on Savings 448, 451. . However, t h e Bank v. Henke
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
