Legal Opinion

John Cannon Agency v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided May 28, 1981No. Docket 52283PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff appeals as of right the grant of defendant’s motion for summary judgment for failure to state a claim.

In its complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant changed plaintiffs telephone number and promised to inform callers dialing the old number of the new number. Defendant failed to do so and, instead, gave callers the number of a different party. That party told callers that no Mr. Cannon was there. As a result, plaintiff allegedly suffered losses in its business.

A motion based on GCR 1963, 117.2(1) challenges the legal sufficiency of a plaintiff’s claim and is to be considered by an…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Valentine v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1972
  2. Garrison v. Pacific Northwest BellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1980
  3. Ready v. Clark Equipment Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1979

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Rinaldo's Construction Corp. v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1997
  2. Rich Electronics, Inc. v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1988
  3. Stark Steel Corp. v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1987

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API