RUMFIELD v. Henney

Michigan Supreme Court

RUMFIELD v. Henney

741 N.W.2d 12, 480 Mich. 944

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 21, 2007

Docket132755

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 741 N.W.2d 12 (RUMFIELD v. Henney) 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

RUMFIELD v. Henney, 741 N.W.2d 12, 480 Mich. 944 (Mich. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

741 N.W.2d 12 (2007)

Timothy RUMFIELD, Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel Rumfield, Deceased, and Conservator/Co-Guardian of Jeffrey Rumfield, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Matthew HENNEY, Defendant/Cross-Defendant, and
Brian Henney, Defendant, and
Kelly Fuels, Inc., d/b/a Woodland Express Mart, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 132755. COA No. 260540.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

November 21, 2007.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 26, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are considered, and they are DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion for peremptory reversal is DENIED.

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, J., would grant leave to appeal.

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