Legal Opinion

Page v. Clark

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided March 28, 1985No. Docket 78321PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court’s finding that, as a matter of law, plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function, based on which the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff raises three issues on appeal, none of them meritorious.

Plaintiff first argues that the trial court should not have ruled on defendants’ motion for summary judgment because discovery was not complete. Since plaintiff failed to argue this in the trial court, we are precluded from considering it on appeal. Moreover, plaintiff had already obtained and submitted a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cassidy v. McGovernMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  2. Braden v. LeeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Guerrero v. SchoolmeesterMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Kortas v. Thunderbowl & LoungeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. DiFranco v. PickardMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Netter v. BowmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Drake v. GordonDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1986
  4. Jones v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Wood v. DartMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986

2 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