Price v. Bloomfield Township

255 Mich. App. 801
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Price v. Bloomfield Township. Read the opinion of the Court — 244 Mich. App. 410
Michigan Court of Appeals·Decided February 6, 2003·No. Docket No. 220285·Published

Opinion

This matter is again before us pursuant to a remand order from the Supreme Court 467 Mich 917 (2002). As directed by that order we vacate the Worker’s Compensation Appellate Commission’s decision and remand the case to that body for it to apply the legal principles outlined in our decision, Price v Bloomfield Twp, 244 Mich App 410; 625 NW2d 790 (2001), and to make such findings of fact necessary, if any, to a proper disposition. Mudel v Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co, 462 Mich 691; 614 NW2d 607 (2000). We do not retain jurisdiction.

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

Price v. Bloomfield Township, 255 Mich. App. 801 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).

255 Mich. App. 801 (Price v. Bloomfield Township) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Price v. Bloomfield Township
625 N.W.2d 790 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2001)
Mudel v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.
614 N.W.2d 607 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2000)