Romska v. Opper
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHoekstra, J.
Although I agree with the majority that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in permitting defendant to amend his affirmative defenses, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not err in granting defendant summary disposition. A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7) should be granted only if no factual development could provide a basis for recovery. Rheaume v Vandenberg, 232 Mich App 417, 420; 591 NW2d 331 (1998). In my opinion, a question of fact remains about whether the parties intended to release from liability not only Farm Bureau Insurance Company but also…
2Cases cited28 opinions
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- UAW-GM Human Resource Center v. KSL Recreation Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1998
- Birdsell v. ShaliolSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Alsup v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1984
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.