Legal Opinion
Sorkowitz v. Lakritz, Wissbrun & Associates, PC
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided April 27, 2004No. Docket No. 242016PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWhite, J.
Plaintiffs appeal the dismissal for failure to state a claim, MCR 2.116(C)(8), of their legal malpractice action. We reverse.
We review de novo the circuit court’s determination on a motion for summary disposition. Kefgen v Davidson, 241 Mich App 611, 616; 617 NW2d 351 (2000). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 119; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). “All well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true and construed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Id.
The question is whether plaintiffs adequately pleaded a cause of…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Kefgen v. DavidsonMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
- Mieras v. DeBonaMichigan Supreme Court · 1996
- Hamilton v. NeedhamDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1986
- Bullis v. DownesMichigan Court of Appeals · 2000
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Carole M. Karam v. Sagemark Consulting, Inc., F/k/a Cigna Financial Advisors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2004
- Sorkowitz v. Lakritz, Wissbrun & Associates, PCMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004