Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In re Moroun
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided February 6, 2012No. Docket No. 308053Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
WILDER, EJ.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I
I agree that this Court has jurisdiction of the claim of appeal filed in this action by appellants Manuel J. Moroun and Dan Stamper for the reason that, as they are nonparties to the underlying action by the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) against the Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC), the order that punished Moroun and Stamper for the civil contempt of DIBC is a final order appealable by right. MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i); US Catholic Conference v Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc, 487 US 72, 76; 108 S Ct 2268; 101 L Ed 2d…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- International Union, United Mine Workers v. BagwellSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- United States Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Ex Parte ChambersTexas Supreme Court · 1995
- Ligons v. Crittenton HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2011
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.