Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sekulov v. City of Warren

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 23, 2002No. Docket 228159Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTalbot, J.

I would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for both defendants. I agree that summary disposition was properly granted in favor of defendant city of Warren for the reasons stated in the majority opinion. However, I would also affirm the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant Macomb County on the basis of Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143; 615 NW2d 702 (2000), and Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492; 638 NW2d 396 (2002), which I believe apply retroactively and are dispositive of plaintiff’s claims.

In determining whether the general…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Ross v. Consumers Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Pohutski v. City of Allen ParkMichigan Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Nawrocki v. MacOmb County Road CommissionMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Michigan Educational Employees Mutual Insurance v. MorrisMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Lindsey v. Harper HospitalMichigan Supreme Court · 1997

5 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