Triplett v. St Amour
Michigan Supreme Court
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRiley, J.
Justice Boyle holds that a defendant who becomes the party to a settlement may not bring an action at law for damages alleging that the settlement was fraudulently induced and that the defendant may only obtain relief through MCR 2.612(C). Justice Boyle, however, fails to address whether a similarly situated plaintiff is also limited to the same remedy, thereby leaving intact the common-law right of a plaintiff to obtain relief from a settlement allegedly induced by fraud through an independent action at law. Because I would find that a party may only obtain relief from a fraudulently induced…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- United States v. ThrockmortonSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Gray v. BartonMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
- DiSabatino v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 1986
- Kordis v. Auto Owners InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1945
- Columbia Casualty Co. v. KlettkeMichigan Supreme Court · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.