Lawrence v. Ingham County Health Department Family Planning/Pre-Natal Clinic
Michigan Court of Appeals
1DissentSawyer, J.
I dissent.
Defendant health clinic made a promise to Ethel Lawrence that if she would come to the clinic and promise thereafter to follow its staff’s directions, it would provide her and her unborn child with appropriate prenatal care. Despite these promises, which defendants must admit as true for purposes of the summary disposition motion, the majority concludes that Ethel’s promise to follow the clinic’s directions had no value to the clinic and, therefore, "is not a legally enforceable promise.”
It is not the office of the courts to scrutinize the adequacy of consideration. Harwood v…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Roe v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Ben P. Fyke & Sons v. Gunter Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1973
- Allegheny College v. National Chautauqua County Bank of JamestownNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
- Lowery v. Department of CorrectionsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
- Kovacs v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.