Craig B. Campbell v. James Lariviere

816 F.2d 678, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4575, 1987 WL 36009
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedApril 6, 1987
Docket87-1008
StatusUnpublished

This text of 816 F.2d 678 (Craig B. Campbell v. James Lariviere) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Craig B. Campbell v. James Lariviere, 816 F.2d 678, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4575, 1987 WL 36009 (6th Cir. 1987).

Opinion

816 F.2d 678

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Craig B. CAMPBELL, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
James LARIVIERE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87-1008.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 6, 1987.

Before JONES and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and COHN, District Judge.*

ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant moves this Court for an order vacating the summary judgment entered December 2, 1986 and remanding the case to the district court for further proceedings. Defendant-appellee has responded in opposition.

The district court determined that plaintiff had not satisfied the threshold criteria to recover for non-economic loss under Michigan's No-Fault Automobile Insurance Act, Mich. Comp. Laws Sec. 500.3135(1) (1973). Cassidy v. McGovern, 415 Mich. 483, 330 N.W. 2d 22 (1982). Plaintiff timely appealed. During the pendency of this appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court redefined what constitutes a "serious impairment of body function," what evidence is needed to meet this threshold and when the issue should be submitted to the factfinder. DiFranco v. Pickard, 427 Mich. 32, 398 N.W. 2d 896 (1986) (en banc). After examination of the record and the documents before the Court, the panel agrees unanimously that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a). The case must be remanded to the district court for further consideration.

Therefore, it is ORDERED that the motion to vacate and remand is granted. The order of the district court entered December 2, 1986 is vacated and the case is . remanded to the district court for further proceedings in light of DiFranco v. Pickard, supra.

*

The Honorable Avern Cohn, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation

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

Related

DiFranco v. Pickard
398 N.W.2d 896 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1986)
Cassidy v. McGovern
330 N.W.2d 22 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
816 F.2d 678, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 4575, 1987 WL 36009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-b-campbell-v-james-lariviere-ca6-1987.