Legal Opinion

Stachnik v. Winkel

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 24, 1975No. 55418, (Calendar No. 19)PublishedCited by 66 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWilliams, J.

Plaintiffs ask this Court to require defendant Mary E. Winkel1 to convey property. Plaintiffs worked for defendants Beach cutting *379lumber on property adjacent to defendant Winkel’s property, which was the only access to the lumbering operation. Finding plaintiffs Andrew Stachnik and Clayton Stevens misrepresented to defendant Winkel that they were purchasing for "the lumber company” and that plaintiff Clayton Stevens acted without good faith toward his employer defendant Beach in buying defendant Winkel’s land which defendant Beach wanted to buy, we hold plaintiffs come before us with unclean…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Precision Instrument Manufacturing Co. v. Automotive Maintenance MacHinery Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
  2. Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1933
  3. Kropf v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
  4. Christine Building Co. v. City of TroyMichigan Supreme Court · 1962
  5. Bein v. HeathSupreme Court of the United States · 1848

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

3Cited by66 opinions

  1. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. WingetCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  2. Craig v. Oakwood HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  3. Mudge v. MacOmb CountyMichigan Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Rose v. National Auction GroupMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  5. Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Custom Nutrition Labs., LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2018

61 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