Legal Opinion

SHAY v. JohnKAL, INC

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1991No. 86016, (Calendar No. 4)PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Levin and Boyle, JJ.

The question presented is whether the "name and retain” provision of the dramshop act bars continued maintenance of a dramshop action where the "allegedly intoxicated person” has been dismissed from the action because the plaintiff and the allegedly intoxicated person accepted a court-ordered mediation award.

We hold that the "name and retain” provision *397does not, in such a case, bar continued maintenance of a dramshop action.

i

Timothy and Rosemary Shay were injured when an automobile he was driving and in which she was riding as a passenger was struck by a vehicle being…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Tebo v. HavlikMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Salas v. ClementsMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Putney v. HaskinsMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  4. Riley v. RichardsMichigan Supreme Court · 1987
  5. Baker v. KalanjMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Green v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Green v. WilsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1995
  3. Green v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Green v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  5. Hensley v. Investors Four, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1998

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