Legal Opinion

Spalo v. a & G ENTERPRISES

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1991No. 86746, (Calendar No. 5)PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGriffin, J.

We are required to decide whether an action against a dramshop defendant arising from an automobile accident can be maintained after the allegedly intoxicated person has been dismissed from the suit because the plaintiff could not meet the no-fault tort liability threshold of "serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement,” MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). We conclude that action against the dramshop defendant is barred under these circumstances by noncompliance with the "name and retain” provision of the dramshop act, MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993.

i

Plaintiff Gary Spalo…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Ferguson v. SkrupaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  2. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. MissouriSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
  3. Tebo v. HavlikMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  4. Browder v. International Fidelity InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  5. Salas v. ClementsMichigan Supreme Court · 1976

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Green v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Green v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  3. Green v. WilsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
  4. LaGuire v. KainMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
  5. LaGuire v. KainMichigan Supreme Court · 1992

2 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