Legal Opinion

Male v. Mayotte, Crouse & D’haene Architects, Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 3, 1987No. Docket 91204, 91205PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiffs appeal as of right from an order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) based on the statute of limitations. We affirm.

Defendant, an architectural firm, supervised construction of a laundry facility for the Department of Corrections at the State Prison for Southern Michigan.

On December 14, 1976, defendant wrote to the Bureau of Facilities advising that the laundry facility would be turned over to the agency on January 31, 1977. On December 17, 1976, the Department of Management and Budget wrote to the Department of Corrections that the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. O'BRIEN v. Hazelet & ErdalMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Oole v. OostingMichigan Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. George v. City of PetoskeyMichigan Court of Appeals · 1974
  4. Hansen v. Upper Peninsula Power Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1985

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Lela Tompkins v. Crown Corr, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2013
  2. Haywood v. FowlerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  3. Stroud v. WardMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Bronson v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1989
  5. Executone Business Systems Corp. v. IPC Communications, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1989

7 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