46th Cir. Trial Court v. County of Crawford

Michigan Supreme Court

46th Cir. Trial Court v. County of Crawford

726 N.W.2d 43, 477 Mich. 1002

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 29, 2007

Docket128882

StatusPublished

This text of 726 N.W.2d 43 (46th Cir. Trial Court v. County of Crawford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

46th Cir. Trial Court v. County of Crawford, 726 N.W.2d 43, 477 Mich. 1002 (Mich. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

726 N.W.2d 43 (2007)

46TH CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
COUNTY OF CRAWFORD and Crawford County Board of Commissioners, Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, Third-Party Plaintiffs, and
County of Kalkaska, Third-Party Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, and
County of Otsego, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee, and
Cohl Stoker Toskey & McGlinchey PC, Appellant.

Docket No. 128882, COA No. 254181.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

January 29, 2007.

*44 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's November 1, 2006 order is considered, and it is GRANTED. In light of the fact that the circuit court did not impose sanctions on Kalkaska or Crawford Counties in this case, but only imposed sanctions on Cohl, Stoker, Toskey & McGlinchey, P.C., and the parties concede that if sanctions are paid by Cohl, Stoker, Toskey & McGlinchey, P.C., the 46th Circuit Trial Court will not receive a double recovery of its attorney fees, we VACATE that part of our November 1, 2006 order that vacated the Court of Appeals opinion in part and remanded this case to the Court of Appeals. On reconsideration, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

726 N.W.2d 43 (2007)

46TH CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
COUNTY OF CRAWFORD and Crawford County Board of Commissioners, Defendants, Counter-Plaintiffs, Third-Party Plaintiffs, and
County of Kalkaska, Third-Party Plaintiff, Counter-Defendant, and
County of Otsego, Third-Party Defendant-Appellee, and
Cohl Stoker Toskey & McGlinchey PC, Appellant.

Docket No. 128882, COA No. 254181.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

January 29, 2007.

*44 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's November 1, 2006 order is considered, and it is GRANTED. In light of the fact that the circuit court did not impose sanctions on Kalkaska or Crawford Counties in this case, but only imposed sanctions on Cohl, Stoker, Toskey & McGlinchey, P.C., and the parties concede that if sanctions are paid by Cohl, Stoker, Toskey & McGlinchey, P.C., the 46th Circuit Trial Court will not receive a double recovery of its attorney fees, we VACATE that part of our November 1, 2006 order that vacated the Court of Appeals opinion in part and remanded this case to the Court of Appeals. On reconsideration, the application for leave to appeal the May 3, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

726 N.W.2d 43, 477 Mich. 1002, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/46th-cir-trial-court-v-county-of-crawford-mich-2007.