Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
Michigan Supreme Court
1ConcurrenceMarkman, J.
oconcurring). I concur in the majority’s analysis and conclusion that the minority/insanity tolling provision of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5851(1), does not toll the one-year-back rule of the no-fault automobile insurance act, MCL 500.3145(1).11 write separately to elaborate on the majority’s analysis and to express certain reservations concerning the decision reached in these opinions.(1) I am concerned that as a consequence of this decision, the protections afforded by the tolling provision may become increasingly illusory. This provision allows minors and insane persons to bring…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Public Citizen v. United States Department of JusticeSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Crooks v. HarrelsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1930
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.