Miller, II v. Chapman Contracting
This text of 717 N.W.2d 872 (Miller, II v. Chapman Contracting) 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
Buddy MILLER, II, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHAPMAN CONTRACTING, Ramzy Kizy, Jr., Kevin R. Paperd, and Sweepmaster, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 16, 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 the Oakland Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals correctly determined that plaintiff's motion to amend was futile. 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
717 N.W.2d 872, 476 Mich. 851, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-ii-v-chapman-contracting-mich-2006.