Legal Opinion

Kreiner v. Fischer

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided July 23, 2004No. Docket 124120, 124757PublishedCited by 127 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTaylor, J.

In these consolidated cases, we granted leave to appeal to consider whether plaintiffs satisfy the “serious impairment of body function” threshold set by the no-fault insurance act in order to be able to maintain an action for noneconomic tort damages. See MCL 500.3135(1). The trial courts granted defendants’ motions for summary disposition, concluding that neither plaintiff has suffered a “serious impairment of body function.” The Court of Appeals reversed.1 Because we conclude that plaintiffs do not satisfy the “serious impairment of body function” threshold, we reverse the judgments of the…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Shavers v. Attorney GeneralMichigan Supreme Court · 1978
  2. In Re MCI Telecommunications ComplaintMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Advisory Opinion Re Constitutionality of 1972 PA 294Michigan Supreme Court · 1973
  4. Wickens v. Oakwood Healthcare SystemMichigan Supreme Court · 2001
  5. DiFranco v. PickardMichigan Supreme Court · 1986

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

3Cited by127 opinions

  1. Rory v. Continental InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 2005
  2. McCORMICK v. CARRIERMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
  3. Johnson v. ReccaMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
  4. Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2006
  5. Saffian v. SimmonsMichigan Supreme Court · 2007

122 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