Legal Opinion

Levendoski v. Geisenhaver

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 9, 1965No. Calendar 53, Docket 50,644PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff Myrtle Levendoski sustained injuries from a fall allegedly resulting from a defective sidewalk adjoining property owned by the defendants. Plaintiffs brought suit on the theory that defendants breached a duty to them imposed by Ordinance No 34, § 3, of the city of Warren. It provides:

“No person shall permit any sidewalk which adjoins property owned by him to fall into a state of disrepair or be unsafe.”

- Defendants were granted summary judgment on the ground that'the ordinance does not create a cause of action agaihst an abutting property owner in favor of one injured by a defective…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Taylor v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  2. City of Detroit v. ChaffeeMichigan Supreme Court · 1888
  3. Grooms v. Union Guardian Trust Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1944

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. Quinlivan v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1975
  2. Fisher v. Johnson Milk Co., Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Bivens v. Grand RapidsMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Struzik v. City and County of HonoluluHawaii Supreme Court · 1968
  5. Woodworth v. BrennerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1976

16 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