Legal Opinion

Brunsell v. City of Zeeland

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 24, 2002No. Docket 120051PublishedCited by 28 opinions

1Per curiam

In this case, plaintiff Eleanor Brunsell claims that defendant city of Zeeland is hable to her as an intended third-party beneficiary under a contract between the city and another party. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the city. The Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion, relying on the lead opinion in Koenig v South Haven, 460 Mich 667; 597 NW2d 99 (1999). We agree with the conclusion of the lower courts that plaintiff was not an intended third-party beneficiary under the circumstances of this case and, accordingly, affirm the Court of Appeals resolution…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Roberts v. Mecosta County General HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Koenig v. City of South HavenMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Guardian Depositors Corp. v. BrownMichigan Supreme Court · 1939

3Cited by28 opinions

  1. Shay v. AldrichMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  2. Schmalfeldt v. North Pointe InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Bailey v. SchaafMichigan Court of Appeals · 2014
  4. Boylan v. Fifty Eight Ltd. Liability Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2010
  5. Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc.District Court, E.D. Texas · 2015

23 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