Legal Opinion
Dayton Mall Motor Inn v. Honeywell, Inc
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided February 8, 1984No. Docket 67766PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Per curiam
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from the dismissal of their commercial contract action against defendants. The circuit judge declined the exercise of jurisdiction based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Plaintiffs are both limited partnerships with offices in Oakland County. The sole general partner of each limited partnership is a resident of Oakland County. Plaintiffs held an interest in a motel in Dayton, Ohio, known as the Mall Motor *177Inn. Defendant Honeywell is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. It also does business in both Ohio and Michigan.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- ABKCO Industries, Inc. v. LennonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Cohane v. Arpeja-California, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1978
- Cray v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1973
- Anderson v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1981
- Wilburn v. WilburnDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1963
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Kriko v. Allstate Insurance Co. of CanadaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
- Duyck v. International Playtex, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
- Bellin v. Johns-Manville Sales CorpMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
- Manfredi v. Johnson Controls, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992
- Dayton Mall Motor Inn v. Honeywell, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.