Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Tebo v. Havlik
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided February 6, 1984No. Docket Nos. 68033, 70881. (Calendar Nos. 10, 11)Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLevin, J.
We agree that this Court’s decision in Putney v Haskins, 414 Mich 181; 324 NW2d 729 (1982), should be applied prospectively, and therefore concur in Burns and to that extent in Tebo. We would not suggest, however, that a decision of this Court disapproving or overruling an "unquestioned” or "uncontradicted interpretation”1 by the Court of Appeals should invariably be given prospective effect.
We also write separately because Robert and Dorothy Tebo should not be permitted to recover damages from the defendant taverns for wage loss and medical expense for which they have already been…
2Cases cited115 opinions
- United States v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Messenger v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- City of Los Angeles Department of Water v. ManhartSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Hankerson v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1973
110 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.