Legal Opinion

Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospital

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 24, 2002No. Docket 116563, 116570, 116573PublishedCited by 287 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtYoung, J.

This case again calls into question the authority of courts to create terms and conditions at variance with those unambiguously and mandatorily stated in a statute. We reaffirm that the duty of the courts of this state is to apply the actual terms of an unambiguous statute.

In this medical malpractice case, the Court of Appeals concluded that defendants had waived their ability to object to the sufficiency of the notices of intent by failing to raise their objections before the *59filing of the complaint. We hold that the statute of limitations cannot be tolled under MCL 600.5856(d) unless notice…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. People v. CarinesMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  2. In Re MCI Telecommunications ComplaintMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. People v. CarterMichigan Supreme Court · 2000
  4. People v. GrantMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Wickens v. Oakwood Healthcare SystemMichigan Supreme Court · 2001

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

3Cited by287 opinions

  1. Quality Products and Concepts Co. v. Nagel Precision, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 2003
  2. Bush v. ShabahangMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Walters v. NadellMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  4. Neal v. WilkesMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  5. Halloran v. BhanMichigan Supreme Court · 2004

282 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