Legal Opinion

Woll v. Attorney General

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided January 23, 1978No. Docket 29914, 30051PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBeasley, J.

On April 1, 1976, plaintiff commenced an action for a declaratory judgment 1 that the Michigan statute 2 prohibiting solicitation of personal injury claims was unconstitutional. He claimed that since he and his law firm represent persons suffering injury by accident, including workmen’s compensation claims, an actual controversy existed between himself and defendants by reason of a grand jury investigation then in progress.

Defendants filed an answer and motion for accelerated and/or summary judgment, claiming that there was no "actual controversy”. However, this motion was rendered moot when,…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. ButtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  5. Bates v. State Bar of ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Woll v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Woll v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  3. Woll v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1980

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

Powered by the Exa API