Legal Opinion

Mayhall v. AH Pond Co., Inc.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 27, 1983No. Docket 61082PublishedCited by 39 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, GCR 1963, 117.2(1).

According to the complaint, plaintiff purchased a ring from defendant Thomas Jewelry Company, Inc. (Thomas), for about $300. Count I alleges: that defendant A. H. Pond Company, Inc. (Pond), had advertised the ring as containing center diamonds that were "perfect”; that plaintiff purchased the ring in reliance on that representation; that the representation was false; and that Pond…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Hi-Way Motor Co. v. International Harvester Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Thomas v. Department of State HighwaysMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
  3. Candler v. HeighoMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Todd v. BiglowMichigan Court of Appeals · 1974
  5. Partrich v. MuscatMichigan Court of Appeals · 1978

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

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Lloyd v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2007
  2. Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 2013
  3. In re Sony Gaming Networks & Customer Data Security Breach LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2014
  4. In Re Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. Tires ProductsDistrict Court, S.D. Indiana · 2001
  5. In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2017

34 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