Schutz v. Murphy
Michigan Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the CourtR. B. Burns, P.J.
Plaintiffs filed suit for damages arising out of defendants’ alleged violation of the dramshop act and of their common law duty to maintain safe business premises. Defendant Murphy was dismissed as a defendant. Thereafter, the trial court granted defendants Schieber’s motion for summary judgment as to count I. It was alleged in count I that plaintiff George Schütz was served alcoholic beverages by the defendants in violation of the dramshop act, MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993, and that said violation was a proximate cause of injuries suffered by George Schütz when he was pushed by another bar patron…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Salas v. ClementsMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Scholten v. RhoadesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Salas v. ClementsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1975
- Dickerson v. HeideMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976
- Farmers Insurance Group v. ClearMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
3Cited by10 opinions
- Burke v. Angies, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
- Newman v. HoholikMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
- Gardner v. StodgelMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989
- Brannstrom v. TippmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
- Cussans v. HarrisMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.