Martinez v. TMF II Waterchase, LLC

Michigan Supreme Court

Martinez v. TMF II Waterchase, LLC

911 N.W.2d 729

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 30, 2018

DocketSC: 155197; COA: 329931

StatusPublished

This text of 911 N.W.2d 729 (Martinez v. TMF II Waterchase, LLC) 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

Martinez v. TMF II Waterchase, LLC, 911 N.W.2d 729 (Mich. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

By order of June 7, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Martin v. Milham Meadows I Ltd. Partnership (Docket No. 154360). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in Martin on March 9, 2018, 501 Mich. 1002, 907 N.W.2d 597 (2018), the application is again considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of Stacker v Lautrec, Ltd. (Docket No. 155120) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

Wilder, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.

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

By order of June 7, 2017, the application for leave to appeal the December 15, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Martin v. Milham Meadows I Ltd. Partnership (Docket No. 154360). On order of the Court, leave to appeal having been denied in Martin on March 9, 2018, 501 Mich. 1002, 907 N.W.2d 597 (2018), the application is again considered and, it appearing to this Court that the case of Stacker v Lautrec, Ltd. (Docket No. 155120) is pending on appeal before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case.

Wilder, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

911 N.W.2d 729, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-tmf-ii-waterchase-llc-mich-2018.