Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lisa Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 22, 2015No. Docket 148079, 148087, and 149344Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partViviano, J.

Two steps forward, one step back. That is how I *95would describe today’s decision. Although it satisfactorily resolves the first issue in these appeals, the Court inexplicably leaves unresolved a compelling threshold issue raised by the plaintiff in Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Mich: if she is to be held to procedural requirements, so should defendants. More specifically, plaintiff1 argued in the trial court that defendants waived the MCL 600.2912b notice-waiting-period affirmative defense because they failed to adequately plead it under MCR 2.111(F)(3). The Court of Appeals found merit…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  2. McCORMICK v. CARRIERMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Walters v. NadellMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Scarsella v. PollakMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  5. Saffian v. SimmonsMichigan Supreme Court · 2007

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

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

Powered by the Exa API