Legal Opinion
Fazzalare v. Desa Industries, Inc
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided June 4, 1984No. Docket 65983PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtD. F. Walsh, P.J.
The facts in this case are adequately set out in the dissenting opinion.
In our judgment, the holding of the dissent is at odds with the well-established principle that, once all of the elements of a cause of action have occurred, the running of the statutory period of limitation is not delayed until the claimant becomes aware of the identity of the alleged tortfea*4sor. Thomas v Ferndale Laboratories, Inc, 97 Mich App 718; 296 NW2d 160 (1980).
The dissent places much reliance on O’Keefe v Clark Equipment Co, 106 Mich App 23; 307 NW2d 343 (1981). The O’Keefe panel cited, and applied, the "rule”…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Bigelow v. WalravenMichigan Supreme Court · 1974
- Charpentier v. YoungMichigan Court of Appeals · 1978
- Meda v. City of HowellMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
- Thomas v. Ferndale Laboratories, IncMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
- Moore v. FlowerMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Delores Marie Swekel v. City of River Rouge, Gregory Harrington, William Abair, Johnson Taylor, William Cooper, and David IsraelCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1996
- RA Jones & Sons, Inc. v. HolmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1985
- Thomas v. Process Equipment Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1986
- Sparks v. Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, Inc.Nevada Supreme Court · 2011
- Mergenthaler v. Asbestos Corp. of AmericaSuperior Court of Delaware · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.