Frank Richard Jacobson v. Norfolk Development Corporation

Michigan Supreme Court

Frank Richard Jacobson v. Norfolk Development Corporation

DecidedJanuary 29, 2009

Docket136588

StatusPublished

This text of Frank Richard Jacobson v. Norfolk Development Corporation (Frank Richard Jacobson v. Norfolk Development Corporation) 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

Frank Richard Jacobson v. Norfolk Development Corporation, (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2009 Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

136586 (47)(50) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 136588 (47)(50) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway, FRANK RICHARD JACOBSON, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 136586 COA: 281587 Washtenaw CC: 06-000289-CH NORFOLK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________/

FRANK RICHARD JACOBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 136588 COA: 283361 Washtenaw CC: 06-000289-CH NORFOLK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for postponement of decision is DENIED as moot. The motion for sanctions is GRANTED. The defendant is awarded costs and attorney fees pursuant to MCR 7.216(C)(1), as there was no reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal. We REMAND this case to the Washtenaw Circuit Court for a determination of actual damages. MCR 7.216(C)(2). Plaintiff Frank Jacobson is barred from submitting additional filings in this Court in non- criminal matters, aside from this case, until he offers proof that he has paid all outstanding court-imposed sanctions.

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 30, 2009 _________________________________________ 0127 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

January 30, 2009 Marilyn Kelly, Chief Justice

136586 (47)(50) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 136588 (47)(50) Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway, FRANK RICHARD JACOBSON, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 136586 COA: 281587 Washtenaw CC: 06-000289-CH NORFOLK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. _________________________________________/

FRANK RICHARD JACOBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SC: 136588 COA: 283361 Washtenaw CC: 06-000289-CH NORFOLK DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for postponement of decision is DENIED as moot. The motion for sanctions is GRANTED. The defendant is awarded costs and attorney fees pursuant to MCR 7.216(C)(1), as there was no reasonable basis for belief that there was a meritorious issue to be determined on appeal. We REMAND this case to the Washtenaw Circuit Court for a determination of actual damages. MCR 7.216(C)(2). Plaintiff Frank Jacobson is barred from submitting additional filings in this Court in non- criminal matters, aside from this case, until he offers proof that he has paid all outstanding court-imposed sanctions.

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 30, 2009 _________________________________________ 0127 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Frank Richard Jacobson v. Norfolk Development Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frank-richard-jacobson-v-norfolk-development-corpo-mich-2009.