Hamilton v. Becker Orthopedic Appliance Co.
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.
The sole issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant costs and attorney fees pursuant to MCR 2.405. We find that the trial court did err. Consequently, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
i
The history of the parties’ engagement under the offer of judgment rule, MCR 2.405, is varyingly described as "hollow offers” by the plaintiff and as "mind boggling” "ping-pong” playing by the trial court. Both characterizations are accurate and reflect how cavalierly the parties participated in the settlement process contemplated by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Sanders v. Monical MacHinery Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1987
- Stamp v. HagermanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989
- Gudewicz v. Matt’s Catering, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
- Nostrant v. Chez Ami, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
3Cited by13 opinions
- Luidens v. 63rd District CourtMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
- Wilkins v. GagliardiMichigan Court of Appeals · 1996
- Hanley v. Mazda Motor Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2000
- Auto Club Insurance v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1996
- Haliw v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.