Moerman v. KALAMAZOO CTY,. RD. COMM.
This text of 366 N.W.2d 223 (Moerman v. KALAMAZOO CTY,. RD. COMM.) 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.
Opinion
MOERMAN
v.
KALAMAZOO COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION
Michigan Court of Appeals.
Sloan, Benefiel, Farrer & Newton (by Gary C. Newton), for plaintiff.
Lilly, Domeny & Durant, P.C. (by Jeffrey E. Gwillim), for defendant.
Before: D.F. WALSH, P.J., and R.M. MAHER and T. ROUMELL,[*] JJ.
ON REHEARING
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.
NOTES
[*] Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
366 N.W.2d 223, 141 Mich. App. 154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moerman-v-kalamazoo-cty-rd-comm-michctapp-1984.