Legal Opinion

Sherrell v. Bugaski

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 21, 1984No. Docket 72822PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The trial court found that as a matter of law plaintiff did not suffer from serious impairment of body function and, thus, did not meet the threshold requirement mandated by MCL 500.3135; MSA 24.13135 to allow recovery for noneconomic damages sustained after suffering injuries in an automobile accident. We agree and affirm.

In Cassidy v McGovern, 415 Mich 483, 502; 330 NW2d 22 (1982), the Court held that when there is no factual dispute regarding the nature and extent of a plaintiff’s injuries, the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rizzo v. KretschmerMichigan Supreme Court · 1973
  2. Cassidy v. McGovernMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
  3. Williams v. PayneMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. Braden v. LeeMichigan Court of Appeals · 1984

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. DiFranco v. PickardMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Sherrell v. BugaskiMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
  3. Franz v. WoodsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1985
  4. Shaw v. MartinMichigan Court of Appeals · 1986
  5. Kreiner v FischerMichigan Court of Appeals · 2002

11 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