Legal Opinion
Avink v. SMG
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided January 20, 2009No. Docket 280241PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Per curiam
Defendant/cross-plaintiff SMG appeals by leave granted the trial court’s ruling that the Plunkett & Cooney law firm’s representation of SMG in an unrelated matter did not create a conflict of interest that precluded it from representing defendant/cross-defendant Overhead Door Company of Grand Rapids in this matter. This ruling allowed Plunkett & Cooney to continue as counsel for Overhead Door in this matter. We reverse.
I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
SMG is the general manager of DeVos Place. In mid-December 2005, a panel in a multi-panel overhead door at DeVos Place collapsed and…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Rymal v. BaergenMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
- Scott M Cain v. Waste Management IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Morris & Doherty, PC v. LockwoodMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
- Barkley v. City of DetroitMichigan Court of Appeals · 1994
- Grievance Administrator v. DeutchMichigan Supreme Court · 1997
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Lamont Community Church v. Lamont Christian Reformed ChurchMichigan Court of Appeals · 2009
- Frank Kern III v. Bonnie Kern-KoskelaMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
- Raghuram Elluru Md v. Great Lakes Plastic Reconstructive & HandMichigan Court of Appeals · 2018
- Zenmuse LLC v. Jamal John HamoodMichigan Court of Appeals · 2020