Legal Opinion

Medbury v. General Motors Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 9, 1982No. Docket 51359PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Per curiam

The dispute in this case involves the proper attorney fees due and owing to appellant after it was discharged by appellees. The dissent sets out the facts in this case. Judge Kelly also correctly states the black-letter law which provides that findings of fact are not to be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous. A trial court’s decision is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court, on the entire evidence, is left with the conviction that a mistake has been committed. Tuttle v Dep’t of State Highways, 397 Mich 44, 46; 243 NW2d 244 (1976).

When…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tuttle v. Department of State HighwaysMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Crawley v. SchickMichigan Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. People v. LobsingerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
  4. Tyrrell v. TyrrellMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Cassandra Dean, a Minor, and Tommy Dean, Next Friend, James R. Bandy and James R. Bandy, P.C., Intervening v. Holiday Inns, Inc., an Ohio CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1988
  2. Ecclestone, Moffett & Humphrey, PC v. Ogne, Jinks, Alberts & Stuart, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Maple Hill Apartment Co. v. StineMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. Maple Hill Apartment Co. v. StineMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  5. Medbury v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1982

1 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