Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Paige v. City of Sterling Heights

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 31, 2006No. Docket 127912Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partCavanagh, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part.) Today, a majority of this Court vacates the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Appellate Commission and remands this case for reconsideration in light of Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439; 613 NW2d 307 (2000). In doing so, the majority overrules Hagerman v Gencorp Automotive, 457 Mich 720; 579 NW2d 347 (1998). I firmly believe that Hagerman was properly decided and correctly interpreted the phrase “proximate cause” as it is used in MCL 418.375(2).1 *526Specifically, this Court correctly considered and rejected the interpretation adopted today;…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Dickerson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Michigan v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  4. Boys Markets, Inc. v. Retail Clerks Union, Local 770Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
  5. Robinson v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 2000

25 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