Legal Opinion

Ten Brink v. Mokma

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 28, 1968No. Docket 3,520PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtQuinn, J.

The trial judge granted defendant Continental Securities Company, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment filed pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3) on the basis that defendant Molona, an employee of Continental, was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, hence the employer was not liable. On leave granted, plaintiffs appeal.

The sole issue is whether as a matter of law defendant Mokma was not within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident.

Defendant Mokma was employed by Continental at, and for some time prior to, the time of the accident. His place of…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Long v. Curtis Publishing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1940

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Romeo v. Van OtterlooMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  2. Silberman v. RoetheWisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  3. Klug v. Flambeau Plastics Corp.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Rowe v. ColwellMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
  5. McClarty v. GudenauDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1994

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API