Paulette Held v. North Shore Condominium Association

Michigan Supreme Court

Paulette Held v. North Shore Condominium Association

DecidedSeptember 23, 2016

Docket153311

StatusPublished

This text of Paulette Held v. North Shore Condominium Association (Paulette Held v. North Shore Condominium Association) 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

Paulette Held v. North Shore Condominium Association, (Mich. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 23, 2016 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

153311 Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen, Justices PAULETTE HELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 153311 COA: 321786 Ingham CC: 13-000241-NO NORTH SHORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant, and PURE GREEN LAWN AND TREE PROFESSIONALS, INC., Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).

I would peremptorily reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Ingham Circuit Court for entry of a judgment in favor of defendant North Shore Condominium Association because the plastic landscape edging over which plaintiff fell was open and obvious. As Judge METER opined in his dissenting opinion, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” 1 The photographs of the area where plaintiff fell indicate that the edging can very clearly be seen curving around the sidewalk, as there

1 Held v North Shore Condo Ass’n, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 4, 2016 (Docket No. 321786) (METER, J., dissenting), p 1. 2

is a distinct color difference between the edging and the mulch. Thus, “an average person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered [the edging] upon casual inspection.” 2 Sometimes error in an unpublished opinion is so blatant, open, and obvious that it must be corrected to maintain clarity of the law for the bench and bar. This is such a case. I would reverse.

MARKMAN, J., joins the statement of ZAHRA, J.

2 Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 461 (2012).

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. September 23, 2016 s0920 Clerk

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

Order Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

September 23, 2016 Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

153311 Stephen J. Markman Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormack David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Joan L. Larsen, Justices PAULETTE HELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v SC: 153311 COA: 321786 Ingham CC: 13-000241-NO NORTH SHORE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant, and PURE GREEN LAWN AND TREE PROFESSIONALS, INC., Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 4, 2016 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should now be reviewed by this Court.

ZAHRA, J. (dissenting).

I would peremptorily reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Ingham Circuit Court for entry of a judgment in favor of defendant North Shore Condominium Association because the plastic landscape edging over which plaintiff fell was open and obvious. As Judge METER opined in his dissenting opinion, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” 1 The photographs of the area where plaintiff fell indicate that the edging can very clearly be seen curving around the sidewalk, as there

1 Held v North Shore Condo Ass’n, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 4, 2016 (Docket No. 321786) (METER, J., dissenting), p 1. 2

is a distinct color difference between the edging and the mulch. Thus, “an average person with ordinary intelligence would have discovered [the edging] upon casual inspection.” 2 Sometimes error in an unpublished opinion is so blatant, open, and obvious that it must be corrected to maintain clarity of the law for the bench and bar. This is such a case. I would reverse.

MARKMAN, J., joins the statement of ZAHRA, J.

2 Hoffner v Lanctoe, 492 Mich 450, 461 (2012).

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. September 23, 2016 s0920 Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Paulette Held v. North Shore Condominium Association, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paulette-held-v-north-shore-condominium-association-mich-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack