Legal Opinion
Mitan v. Neiman Marcus
Michigan Court of Appeals
Decided April 28, 2000No. Docket No. 212002PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Per curiam
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a circuit court order granting defendants’ motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) and dismissing her claim for retaliatory discharge under the Michigan Handicappers’ Civil Rights Act (HCRA), MCL 37.1602(a); MSA 3.550(602)(a).1 We affirm.
The trial court’s ruling on a motion for summary disposition is reviewed de novo. Pinckney Community Schools v Continental Casualty Co, 213 Mich App 521, 525; 540 NW2d 748 (1995).
A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint. In evaluating a motion for summary disposition…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Maiden v. RozwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Quinto v. Cross and Peters Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1996
- DeFLAVIIS v. LORD & TAYLOR, INCMichigan Court of Appeals · 1997
- Kaufman & Payton, PC v. NikkilaMichigan Court of Appeals · 1993
- McLemore v. Detroit Receiving Hospital & University Medical CenterMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by24 opinions
- Garg v. MacOmb County Community Mental Health ServicesMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
- Barrett v. Kirtland Community CollegeMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
- Dykes v. William Beaumont HospitalMichigan Court of Appeals · 2001
- Rymal v. BaergenMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
- Bachman v. Swan Harbour AssociatesMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.