Legal Opinion

Spiklevitz v. Markmil Corp.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 7, 1984No. Docket 70903PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order affirming a summary judgment (which should have been designated an accelerated judgment) in favor of defendants. The district court judge ruled that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.

In 1974, plaintiff loaned money to Vincent P. and Geraldine B. Heron. The Herons executed a note on July 5, 1974, promising to pay plaintiff the sum of $4,800 by January 15, 1975. On April 1, 1980, the Herons sold their business to defendants. At that time, $3,510 remained unpaid on the note to plaintiff. Defendants executed an…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Nutter v. MroczkaMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939
  2. Hendricks v. BrooksSupreme Court of Kansas · 1909
  3. Anderson v. Calaveras Central Mining Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1936
  4. Gray Lithograph Co. v. American Watchman's Time Detector Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1904
  5. Clinton v. Clinton's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1907

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Stillman v. GoldfarbMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
  2. Dagen v. Village of BaldwinMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  3. Dagen v. Village of BaldwinMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Radisson Hotel Corp. v. Pontchartrain Hotel Group, L.L.C.District Court, E.D. Michigan · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API