Legal Opinion

Higgins v. Lauritzen

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided March 7, 1995No. Docket 158503PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiffs appeal as of right from a Newaygo Circuit Court order granting summary disposition for defendant Bernard Lauritzen, individually and doing business as Lauritzen Well Drilling (hereafter defendant), pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

I

On January 23, 1992, plaintiffs, who are owners of a dairy farm, commenced this action against defendants to recover damages for various problems associated with their dairy herd. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant drilled a well and installed piping and an electrical water pump on their property in August, 1983,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Neibarger v. Universal Coopertives, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992
  2. Patterson v. KleimanMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  3. McCarthy Well Co. v. St. Peter Creamery, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1987
  4. Conopco, Inc. v. McCreadieDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1993
  5. Cork Plumbing Co. v. Martin Bloom Associates, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1978

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Golden v. Den-Mat Corp.Court of Appeals of Kansas · 2012
  2. Mécanique C.N.C., Inc. v. Durr Environmental, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2004
  3. Quest Diagnostics, Inc v. MCI Worldcom, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
  4. Allmand Associates, Inc. v. Hercules Inc.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1997
  5. Pendzsu v. Beazer East, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1996

11 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