Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Romska v. Opper

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 22, 1999No. Docket 195410Published

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

  1. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. UAW-GM Human Resource Center v. KSL Recreation Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1998
  4. Birdsell v. ShaliolSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
  5. Alsup v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1984

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