James v. AUTO LAB DIAGNOSTICS & TUNE UP CENTERS
712 N.W.2d 714, 474 Mich. 1118
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in James v. AUTO LAB DIAGNOSTICS & TUNE UP CENTERS. Read the opinion of the Court — 474 Mich. 1061 →
Opinion
Mark P. JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellee, and
Auto-Owners Insurance Company, Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
AUTO LAB DIAGNOSTICS & TUNE UP CENTERS and Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendants-Appellants, and
Second Injury Fund, Permanent & Total Disability Provisions, Defendant-Appellee.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of the order of February 24, 2006 is considered and it is DENIED because it does not appear the order was entered erroneously.
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would grant reconsideration.
WEAVER, J., states as follows:
I would grant reconsideration and remand this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of Camburn v. Northwest School Dist. (After Remand), 459 Mich. 471, 592 N.W.2d 46 (1999).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
James v. AUTO LAB DIAGNOSTICS & TUNE UP CENTERS, 712 N.W.2d 714, 474 Mich. 1118 (Mich. 2006).
712 N.W.2d 714 (James v. AUTO LAB DIAGNOSTICS & TUNE UP CENTERS) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Camburn v. Northwest School District
592 N.W.2d 46 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1999)