Boss v. LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, PC

Michigan Supreme Court

Boss v. LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, PC

748 N.W.2d 852, 481 Mich. 880

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Boss v. LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, PC. Read the opinion of the Court — 784 N.W.2d 813 →

Michigan Supreme Court·Decided May 27, 2008·No. 136038·Published

Opinion

748 N.W.2d 852 (2008)

Jack BOSS and Mari Boss, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C., Kelly K. Reed, Catherine A. Jacobs, Kevin J. Roragen, Eagle Transport Services, Inc., William Culbertson, S. Whitfield Lee, R. Andrew Gately, and Tall Grass Investment Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 136038. COA No. 280716.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 27, 2008.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

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

748 N.W.2d 852 (2008)

Jack BOSS and Mari Boss, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, P.C., Kelly K. Reed, Catherine A. Jacobs, Kevin J. Roragen, Eagle Transport Services, Inc., William Culbertson, S. Whitfield Lee, R. Andrew Gately, and Tall Grass Investment Corporation, Defendants-Appellees.

Docket No. 136038. COA No. 280716.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 27, 2008.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

Boss v. LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, PC, 748 N.W.2d 852, 481 Mich. 880 (Mich. 2008).

Pincite

748 N.W.2d 852 (Boss v. LOOMIS, EWERT, PARSLEY, DAVIS & GOTTING, PC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.