Daniel a Young v. Partha Shanker Nandi

Michigan Supreme Court

Daniel a Young v. Partha Shanker Nandi

DecidedJanuary 23, 2009

Docket134799

StatusPublished

This text of Daniel a Young v. Partha Shanker Nandi (Daniel a Young v. Partha Shanker Nandi) 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

Daniel a Young v. Partha Shanker Nandi, (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

January 27, 2009 Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

134799(102) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver DANIEL A. YOUNG, as Personal Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Representative of the Estate of PATRICIA Stephen J. Markman J. YOUNG, Diane M. Hathaway, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Justices Cross-Appellee, v SC: 134799 COA: 266261 Oakland CC: 2003-049093-NH PARTHA SHANKER NANDI, M.D., SANTE BOLOGNA, M.D., and CENTER FOR DIGESTIVE HEALTH, a/k/a TROY GASTROENTEROLOGY, P.C., Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants, and WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL-TROY, Defendant. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for clarification of this Court’s October 3, 2008 order is considered, and it is GRANTED. For the reasons stated in that order, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for a hearing concerning attorney fees in the plaintiff’s favor as case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b). “Under the facts of this case, such a hearing was necessary.” In our October 3, 2008 order, we remanded this case to the Oakland Circuit Court “for a hearing on the subject of a reasonable attorney fee, consistent with Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (2008).” We clarify, however, that such a hearing shall occur only if the Oakland Circuit Court first determines, on remand, that the plaintiff is still entitled to case evaluation sanctions in light of the rulings made by the Court of Appeals.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

CAVANAGH and WEAVER, JJ., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. January 27, 2009 _________________________________________ d0120 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

January 27, 2009 Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

134799(102) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver DANIEL A. YOUNG, as Personal Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Representative of the Estate of PATRICIA Stephen J. Markman J. YOUNG, Diane M. Hathaway, Plaintiff-Appellant/ Justices Cross-Appellee, v SC: 134799 COA: 266261 Oakland CC: 2003-049093-NH PARTHA SHANKER NANDI, M.D., SANTE BOLOGNA, M.D., and CENTER FOR DIGESTIVE HEALTH, a/k/a TROY GASTROENTEROLOGY, P.C., Defendants-Appellees/ Cross-Appellants, and WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL-TROY, Defendant. _________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for clarification of this Court’s October 3, 2008 order is considered, and it is GRANTED. For the reasons stated in that order, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for a hearing concerning attorney fees in the plaintiff’s favor as case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b). “Under the facts of this case, such a hearing was necessary.” In our October 3, 2008 order, we remanded this case to the Oakland Circuit Court “for a hearing on the subject of a reasonable attorney fee, consistent with Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (2008).” We clarify, however, that such a hearing shall occur only if the Oakland Circuit Court first determines, on remand, that the plaintiff is still entitled to case evaluation sanctions in light of the rulings made by the Court of Appeals.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

CAVANAGH and WEAVER, JJ., would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. January 27, 2009 _________________________________________ d0120 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Daniel a Young v. Partha Shanker Nandi, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-a-young-v-partha-shanker-nandi-mich-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack