Legal Opinion · Dissent

Mikelsavage v. City of Detroit

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1955No. Docket 52, Calendar 46,493Published

1DissentButzel, J.

The reasoning of the opinion for reversal indicates that there is no necessity for presentation in addition to notice. It would result in invalidating the ordinance providing for presentation to the corporation counsel. The opinion seems not to recognize the distinction be*571tween the 2 concepts of notice and presentation for audit and allowance.

The purpose of notice is to afford opportunity for investigation and to confine a future plaintiff to substantially the character of the defect alleged with a view to settlement or proper investigation and defense of the claim. Harrington v. City of…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. People v. SellMichigan Supreme Court · 1945
  2. Tribbett v. Village of MarcellusMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Milk Marketing Board v. JohnsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
  4. Toole v. Michigan State Board of DentistryMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  5. Hinderer v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1927

9 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