HONIGMAN, MILLER, SCHWARTZ & COHN, LLP v. Cogan
740 N.W.2d 655, 480 Mich. 935
Opinion
HONIGMAN, MILLER, SCHWARTZ & COHN, L.L.P., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-Appellee,
v.
Teisha Tann COGAN, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant-Appellant,
v.
Joseph Aviv, Miriam Wolock, and Thomas Frazee, Third-Party Defendants-Appellees, and
UHY Advisors MI, Inc., Third-Party Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff-Appellee, and
Morganroth and Morganroth, P.L.L.C., Appellee.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. The application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2007 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
HONIGMAN, MILLER, SCHWARTZ & COHN, LLP v. Cogan, 740 N.W.2d 655, 480 Mich. 935 (Mich. 2007).
740 N.W.2d 655 (HONIGMAN, MILLER, SCHWARTZ & COHN, LLP v. Cogan) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Estate of Stoyka v. Mt. Clemens Gen. Hosp.
740 N.W.2d 655 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2007)