Legal Opinion

Rohl v. Leone

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided October 7, 2003No. Docket 235524PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.

Plaintiff challenges the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. We review de novo the grant or denial of a motion for a directed verdict. Cacevic v Simplimatic Engineering Co (On Remand), 248 Mich App 670, 679; 645 NW2d 287 (2001). We further explained in Cacevic:

In reviewing the trial court’s decision, we view the evidence presented up to the time of the motion in the light most favorable to the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Beaudrie v. HendersonMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  2. Dessart v. BurakMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. Elia v. HazenMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. Cacevic v. Simplimatic Engineering Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2001
  5. Kosmyna v. Botsford Community HospitalMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Smith v. KhouriMichigan Supreme Court · 2008
  2. Ghaffari v. Turner Construction Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  3. Larry Shears v. Douglas BingamanMichigan Court of Appeals · 2017
  4. Smith v. KhouriMichigan Supreme Court · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API