Hickey v. LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, HERSKOVIC and DOMOL, PC
722 N.W.2d 887, 477 Mich. 924, 2006 Mich. LEXIS 2546
This text of 722 N.W.2d 887 (Hickey v. LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, HERSKOVIC and DOMOL, PC) 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
Hickey v. LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, HERSKOVIC and DOMOL, PC, 722 N.W.2d 887, 477 Mich. 924, 2006 Mich. LEXIS 2546 (Mich. 2006).
Opinion
Phillip D. HICKEY and Carol Haidy-Hickey, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, HERSKOVIC and DOMOL, P.C., Defendant-Appellee, and
Sheldon Miller, Defendant.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we *888 are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARILYN J. KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
COUNTY OF CRAWFORD v. County of Otsego
722 N.W.2d 887 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2006)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
722 N.W.2d 887, 477 Mich. 924, 2006 Mich. LEXIS 2546, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hickey-v-lopatin-miller-freedman-bluestone-herskovic-and-domol-pc-mich-2006.