Legal Opinion
Attorney General v. Diamond Mortgage Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided December 7, 1982No. 66369, (Calendar No. 6)PublishedCited by 51 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtColeman, J.
The Attorney General brings this action in quo warranto and under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act against Diamond Mortgage Company and its officers and directors. The case was dismissed in the trial court, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Several questions need to be answered. First, under the doctrines of either the exhaustion of administrative remedies or primary jurisdiction, should this action against a licensed real estate broker initially have been brought before the Department of Licensing and Regulation? Second, are the defendants exempt from the Michigan Consumer Protection…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. Western Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Far East Conference v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- United States v. Radio Corp. of AmericaSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- White Lake Improvement Ass'n v. City of WhitehallMichigan Court of Appeals · 1970
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by51 opinions
- Smith v. Globe Life InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Rinaldo's Construction Corp. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1997
- Travelers Insurance v. Detroit Edison Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 2001
- Baker v. Arbor Drugs, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
- Cherry Growers, Inc. v. Agricultural Marketing & Bargaining BoardMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
46 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.