Roberts v. Saffell

Michigan Supreme Court

Roberts v. Saffell

763 N.W.2d 287, 483 Mich. 943

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 2009

Docket137749

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 763 N.W.2d 287 (Roberts v. Saffell) 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

Roberts v. Saffell, 763 N.W.2d 287, 483 Mich. 943 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Order Granting Oral Argument in Case Pending on Application for Leave to Appeal April 8, 2009:

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: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that innocent misrepresentation is not a viable theory of liability under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq.; (2) if not, whether the plaintiffs could nevertheless proceed with their claim to the extent an issue presented to the jury was whether the defendants knew of the termite infestation and intentionally withheld the information from the plaintiffs; (3) whether the defendants failed to preserve the argument that a claim for innocent misrepresentation cannot legally be maintained under the SDA by failing to expressly present it at the Court of Appeals; and (4) if so, whether this failure to preserve the issue acted as a waiver of this defense or acted as a bar to the Court of Appeals consideration of the issue. The parties may file supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. Reported below: 280 Mich App 397.

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

Order Granting Oral Argument in Case Pending on Application for Leave to Appeal April 8, 2009:

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: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred by holding that innocent misrepresentation is not a viable theory of liability under the Seller Disclosure Act (SDA), MCL 565.951 et seq.; (2) if not, whether the plaintiffs could nevertheless proceed with their claim to the extent an issue presented to the jury was whether the defendants knew of the termite infestation and intentionally withheld the information from the plaintiffs; (3) whether the defendants failed to preserve the argument that a claim for innocent misrepresentation cannot legally be maintained under the SDA by failing to expressly present it at the Court of Appeals; and (4) if so, whether this failure to preserve the issue acted as a waiver of this defense or acted as a bar to the Court of Appeals consideration of the issue. The parties may file supplemental briefs within 28 days of the date of this order, but they should not submit mere restatements of their application papers. Reported below: 280 Mich App 397.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 N.W.2d 287, 483 Mich. 943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-saffell-mich-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack