Legal Opinion

Maddox v. Burlingame

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided June 6, 1994No. Docket 144770PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtShepherd, J.

In this appeal as of right, we consider whether plaintiffs’ legal malpractice claim against defendant 1 is barred by the two-year statute of limitations. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4). After initially denying defendant’s motion, the trial court subsequently granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). We reverse.

Defendant was consulted by plaintiffs in September of 1986 relative to the sale of a certain franchised business that they owned. A large portion of the purchase price was financed by plaintiffs, with plaintiffs retaining a security interest in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Gebhardt v. O'ROURKEMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Stroud v. WardMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Chapman v. SullivanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1987
  4. Hooper v. Hill LewisMichigan Court of Appeals · 1991

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Robert Moss (99-1951 01-1797) and Ronald Kohn (01-1610) v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
  2. Kloian v. SchwartzMichigan Court of Appeals · 2006
  3. Ameriwood Industries International Corp. v. Arthur Andersen & Co.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1997
  4. Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess, Deitch & Serlin, PC v. BakshiMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
  5. Best Choice Fund, LLC v. Low & Childers, P.C.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 2012

17 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