Collier v. Pruzinsky
This text of 730 N.W.2d 243 (Collier v. Pruzinsky) 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.
Opinion
Susan COLLIER, Personal Representative of the Estate of Silvio Giannetti; and Giannetti Investment Co., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Jerry PRUZINSKY, Defendant-Appellee,
Anna Marie Pruzinsky, Defendant.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The motion for reconsideration of this Court's March 26, 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneouly. "No appeal" provisions in contracts have long been recognized by this Court as valid and binding. Wyrzykowski v. Budds, 325 Mich. 199, 201-202, 38 N.W.2d 313 (1949); Cole v. Thayer, 25 Mich. 212 (1872).
MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., would deny reconsideration without the further statement found in the majority's order.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
730 N.W.2d 243, 477 Mich. 1121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/collier-v-pruzinsky-mich-2007.