Haycock v. Boomer
758 N.W.2d 569, 482 Mich. 1187
This text of 758 N.W.2d 569 (Haycock v. Boomer) 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
Haycock v. Boomer, 758 N.W.2d 569, 482 Mich. 1187 (Mich. 2008).
Opinion
Gerald L. HAYCOCK, Ann M. Haycock, W. Gregg Slager, and Sue A. Slager, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Ray BOOMER, Barbara Boomer, and Stephen Boomer, Defendants-Appellants,
and
City of Norton Shores, State Treasurer, Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources, Leslie Toth, Peter Toth, Michael Tomaszckyk, Marie Tomaszckyk, Michael Cerminaro, Connie Cerminaro, Frederick C. Anderson II, Ronald Zuker, Vicki Zuker, Georgia Johnson, City of Muskegon Heights, Muskegon County Drain Commission, GTE North, Inc., TCI Cablevision of Michigan, and Michigan State Transport, Defendants.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 5, 2008 *570 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Okrie v. Ettema Brothers
758 N.W.2d 569 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2008)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
758 N.W.2d 569, 482 Mich. 1187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haycock-v-boomer-mich-2008.