Moerman v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission

Michigan Court of Appeals

Moerman v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission

141 Mich. App. 154

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 28, 1984

DocketDocket No. 58635

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 141 Mich. App. 154 (Moerman v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Moerman v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission, 141 Mich. App. 154 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

On Rehearing

Before: D. F. Walsh, P.J., and R. M. Maher and T. Roumell,* JJ.

Per Curiam.

In Moerman v Kalamazoo County Road Comm, 129 Mich App 584; 341 NW2d 829 (1983), we held that numerous errors had denied plaintiff a fair trial and we reversed the judgment of the trial court. Defendant moved for rehearing, arguing that this Court had misunderstood a factual question in the case (the position of the tree struck by the decedent’s car in relation to the shoulder of the road) and that this Court’s opinion had failed to address various arguments raised by defendant. After reconsideration, we conclude that our original opinion was wrongly decided for the reasons expressed in Judge Walsh’s dissent to that opinion. 129 Mich App 597. We therefore reverse our original ruling and affirm the judgment of the trial court._

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

On Rehearing

Before: D. F. Walsh, P.J., and R. M. Maher and T. Roumell,* JJ.

Per Curiam.

In Moerman v Kalamazoo County Road Comm, 129 Mich App 584; 341 NW2d 829 (1983), we held that numerous errors had denied plaintiff a fair trial and we reversed the judgment of the trial court. Defendant moved for rehearing, arguing that this Court had misunderstood a factual question in the case (the position of the tree struck by the decedent’s car in relation to the shoulder of the road) and that this Court’s opinion had failed to address various arguments raised by defendant. After reconsideration, we conclude that our original opinion was wrongly decided for the reasons expressed in Judge Walsh’s dissent to that opinion. 129 Mich App 597. We therefore reverse our original ruling and affirm the judgment of the trial court._

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 Mich. App. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moerman-v-kalamazoo-county-road-commission-michctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack