Hosey v. Berry

720 N.W.2d 750, 477 Mich. 855
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 15, 2006
Docket131213
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 720 N.W.2d 750 (Hosey v. Berry) 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
Hosey v. Berry, 720 N.W.2d 750, 477 Mich. 855 (Mich. 2006).

Opinion

720 N.W.2d 750 (2006)

Amelia HOSEY, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Chantay Starghill BERRY, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 131213. COA No. 257709.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

September 15, 2006.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 6, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered. We direct the Clerk to schedule oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other peremptory action. MCR 7.302(G)(1). At oral argument, the parties shall address whether MCR 2.116(G)(6) permits a trial court, in deciding a motion for summary disposition, to consider unsworn statements or opinions of potential witnesses contained in documents that may be inadmissible at trial. The parties may file supplemental briefs within 42 days of the date of this order, but they should avoid submitting a mere restatement of the arguments made in their application papers.

The Michigan Trial Lawyers Association and the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc. are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.

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

Related

Williams v. AAA OF MICHIGAN
720 N.W.2d 750 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
720 N.W.2d 750, 477 Mich. 855, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hosey-v-berry-mich-2006.