G C Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1DissentYoung, J.
The majority ignores the clear language of the reba, MCL 339.2501 et seq., favoring instead an interpretation whose result the majority deems more palatable. The majority also ignores the historical evolution of the statute, which is not dispositive but is entirely consistent with the unambiguous language of the statute. I believe that the statute encompasses the brokerage of business opportunities that do not involve real estate transactions. Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. Because the majority concludes otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
Plaintiff maintains…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
- People v. LukityMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Sun Valley Foods Co. v. WardMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Pohutski v. City of Allen ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
- People v. CornellMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.