Legal Opinion
Hurd v. Ford Motor Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided November 22, 1985No. 71185, (Calendar No. 15)PublishedCited by 50 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRiley, J.
The issue to be decided in this case is whether MCL 418.301(2); MSA 17.237(301)(2) 1 of 1980 PA 357 will have prospective or retroactive effect. 2 This Court holds that MCL 418.301(2); MSA 17.237(301)(2) was enacted to invalidate this Court’s decision in Deziel v Difco Laboratories, Inc (After Remand), 403 Mich 1; 268 NW2d 1 (1978), thus effecting a substantive change in the law and that the provisions of this amendment have prospective application.
Plaintiff, Quay Hurd, began working for the defendant, Ford Motor Company, in 1962. In 1974, plaintiff sought psychiatric treatment, complaining…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1981
- Richardson v. BelcherSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Franks v. White Pine Copper DivisionMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
- Deziel v. Difco Laboratories, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 2009
- Selk v. Detroit Plastic ProductsMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by50 opinions
- Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 2002
- Johnson v. PastorizaMichigan Supreme Court · 2012
- White v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1988
- Brewer v. a D Transport Express, IncMichigan Supreme Court · 2010
- Gardner v. Van Buren Public SchoolsMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.