Legal Opinion · Dissent

Middleton v. Margulis

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 4, 1987No. Docket 90516Published

1DissentM. Warshawsky, J.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority.

I adopt the facts as they are clearly and concisely set forth in the majority’s opinion.

MCR 2.313(B) provides a variety of remedies for a party’s failure to respond to discovery orders or permit discovery. This Court has previously stated that the above provision is broad enough to permit a trial court to exclude evidence if the trial court, in its discretion, believes that such action is an appropriate remedy for violation of discovery practice. Kurczewski v State Highway Comm, 112 Mich App 544, 549; 316 NW2d 484 (1982), lv den 414 Mich 957…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kurczewski v. State Highway CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Banaszewski v. ColmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. Thorne v. CarterMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API