Euihyung Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na

Michigan Supreme Court

Euihyung Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na

DecidedApril 12, 2013

Docket144690

StatusPublished

This text of Euihyung Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na (Euihyung Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na) 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

Euihyung Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na, (Mich. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

April 12, 2013 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Rehearing No. 589 Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly 144690 Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano, Justices EUIHYUNG KIM and IN SOOK KIM, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v SC: 144690 COA: 302528 Macomb CC: 2009-005347-CH JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED. We reaffirm the principle stated more than 100 years ago in Peoples v Evening News Ass’n, 51 Mich 11, 21 (1883), that “rehearing will not be ordered on the ground merely that a change of members of the bench has either taken place, or is about to occur.” The same is true for reconsideration. Likewise, we elect to apply MCR 2.119(F)(3) to these cases, which states, “[A] motion for rehearing or reconsideration which merely presents the same issues ruled on by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted.” MCR 2.119(F)(3). Instead, the moving party must demonstrate “a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from correction of the error.” Id. In this case, the moving party has failed to satisfy either of these requirements and has, therefore, failed to demonstrate grounds for rehearing.

Further, the Court has published for comment proposed amendments of MCR 7.313(E) and MCR 7.313(F) to incorporate into the Court’s rules the standards set forth in MCR 2.119(F)(3) with regard to motions for rehearing and reconsideration. The publication order that contains the proposed rule changes is attached.

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. April 12, 2013 _________________________________________ t0409 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

April 12, 2013 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Rehearing No. 589 Michael F. Cavanagh Stephen J. Markman Mary Beth Kelly 144690 Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano, Justices EUIHYUNG KIM and IN SOOK KIM, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v SC: 144690 COA: 302528 Macomb CC: 2009-005347-CH JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for rehearing is considered, and it is DENIED. We reaffirm the principle stated more than 100 years ago in Peoples v Evening News Ass’n, 51 Mich 11, 21 (1883), that “rehearing will not be ordered on the ground merely that a change of members of the bench has either taken place, or is about to occur.” The same is true for reconsideration. Likewise, we elect to apply MCR 2.119(F)(3) to these cases, which states, “[A] motion for rehearing or reconsideration which merely presents the same issues ruled on by the court, either expressly or by reasonable implication, will not be granted.” MCR 2.119(F)(3). Instead, the moving party must demonstrate “a palpable error by which the court and the parties have been misled and show that a different disposition of the motion must result from correction of the error.” Id. In this case, the moving party has failed to satisfy either of these requirements and has, therefore, failed to demonstrate grounds for rehearing.

Further, the Court has published for comment proposed amendments of MCR 7.313(E) and MCR 7.313(F) to incorporate into the Court’s rules the standards set forth in MCR 2.119(F)(3) with regard to motions for rehearing and reconsideration. The publication order that contains the proposed rule changes is attached.

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. April 12, 2013 _________________________________________ t0409 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Euihyung Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/euihyung-kim-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-mich-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack