Legal Opinion

Longstreth v. Gensel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 27, 1985No. Docket Nos. 71465, 71503. (Calendar No. 4)PublishedCited by 97 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCavanagh, J.

The issue presented is whether *678plaintiffs can maintain a cause of action based on violation of MCL 436.33; MSA 18.1004, which prohibits a person from knowingly selling or furnishing alcoholic liquor to a person under twenty-one years of age, against persons who are social hosts.

I

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the basis of a failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. GCR 1963, 117,2(1). A motion brought under this subrule tests the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint. The motion should be granted only if the claims are so clearly…

2Cases cited43 opinions

  1. Rappaport v. NicholsSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1959
  2. Vesely v. SagerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
  3. Kelly v. GwinnellSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1984
  4. Congini by Congini v. PORTERSVILLE ETC.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
  5. Abel v. Eli Lilly & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1984

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

3Cited by97 opinions

  1. Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. Spence Bros.Michigan Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Lash v. City of Traverse CityMichigan Supreme Court · 2007
  3. Orzel v. Scott Drug Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1995
  4. Sparks v. SparksMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Reeder v. DanielTexas Supreme Court · 2001

92 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