Holloway v. United Parcel Service
This text of 633 N.W.2d 365 (Holloway v. United Parcel Service) 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.
Opinion
Vicki L. HOLLOWAY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellants.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the December 1, 2000 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court prior to the proceedings ordered by the Court of Appeals and any further subsequent review by the Court of Appeals.
MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows:
I would peremptorily reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the WCAC's order. In my judgment, the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the WCAC because there was "any evidence" to support *366 the latter's factual finding that plaintiff was no longer totally disabled. See Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 462 Mich. 691, 703-04, 614 N.W.2d 607 (2000).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
633 N.W.2d 365, 465 Mich. 876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holloway-v-united-parcel-service-mich-2001.