Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sholberg v. Truman

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 10, 2014No. Docket 146725Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partViviano, J.

I concur with the majority that defendants Robert and Marilyn Truman are entitled to dismissal because they are not liable for the nuisance at issue. I write separately because I disagree that this case can be decided as a matter of law on the issue of defendants’ control over the land from which the nuisance arose. But I would reach the same result because I believe that defendants’ lack of knowledge of the nuisance provides an alternative basis for dismissal.

In our order directing oral argument on defendants’ application for leave to appeal, this Court directed the parties to address…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Merritt v. NickelsonMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  2. Cowles v. Bank WestMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  3. Inhabitants of Rockport v. Rockport Granite Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1901
  4. Randall v. Delta Charter TownshipMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
  5. Maynard v. Carey Construction Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1939

7 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