Legal Opinion

White v. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 8, 2007No. Docket No. 270320PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.

Flaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court’s orders granting defendants’ motions for summary disposition based on the expiration of the period of limitations. We affirm because we are required to do so under the first-out rule of this Court, MCR 7.215(J)(1), by controlling precedent in Apsey v Mem Hosp (On Reconsideration), 266 Mich App 666; *802702 NW2d 870 (2005), lv pending.1 However, we conclude that Apsey was wrongly decided, and we declare a conflict with the decision in Apsey pursuant to MCR 7.215(J)(2); we follow Apsey only because we are required to do so. This appeal has been…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Shelley v. KraemerSupreme Court of the United States · 1948
  2. Smith v. GaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  3. Walen v. Department of CorrectionsMichigan Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Apsey v. Memorial HospitalMichigan Court of Appeals · 2005
  5. Sipes v. McGheeMichigan Supreme Court · 1947

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. White v. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer InstituteMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  2. White v. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer InstituteMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007
  3. Kaczynski v. AndersonMichigan Court of Appeals · 2007

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API