Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Dimmitt & Owens Financial, Inc v. Deloitte & Touche (Isc), LLC
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided July 9, 2008No. Docket 134087Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKelly, J.
I agree that “original injury” as used in the tort venue statute1 is not synonymous with the breach of a duty and that venue here is proper in Oakland County. But I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the “original injury” for venue purposes occurred when plaintiff Dimmitt & Owens Financial, Inc. (Dimmitt) became unable to meet its financial obligations and elected to liquidate its assets.
The majority focuses on when Dimmitt’s damages emanating from the original injury became manifest. *633But I find that the original injury occurred earlier, when Dimmitt made investment decisions in…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992
- Henry v. Dow Chemical CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Peplinski v. Employment Security CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
- Taha v. Basha Diagnostics, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
- Dimmitt & Owens Financial, Inc v. Deloitte & Touche (Isc), LLCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007