Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Minter v. City of Grand Rapids

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 29, 2007No. Docket 273017Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMurray, J.

I concur with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition regarding plaintiffs broken toe and cervical strain. Additionally, there is full agreement on the point of law that, even though plaintiff did not submit the necessary evidence to support a claim under MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii), she can still seek to establish a claim under the serious impairment of body function provision of the statute. MCL 500.5135(1). This has been clear since at least Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich App 223, 232; 611 NW2d 333 (2000).

However, I part…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  2. Dressel v. AmeribankMichigan Supreme Court · 2003
  3. Kreiner v. FischerMichigan Supreme Court · 2004
  4. Peña v. Ingham County Road CommissionMichigan Court of Appeals · 2003
  5. Kern v. Blethen-ColuniMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000

8 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