Shirk v. VAN DYK
658 N.W.2d 124, 468 Mich. 870
Opinion
Robert SHIRK and Mary Lee Shirk, Plaintiffs, Counter-Defendants and Appellees,
v.
Arnold VAN DYK, Defendant, Counter-Plaintiff and Appellant.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the April 26, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
WEAVER, J., dissents and states as follows:
I dissent from the denial order. I would peremptorily reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the order of the Barry Circuit Court.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Shirk v. VAN DYK, 658 N.W.2d 124, 468 Mich. 870 (Mich. 2003).
658 N.W.2d 124 (Shirk v. VAN DYK) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
CENT. CEILING & PARTITION, INC. v. Department of Commerce
709 N.W.2d 146 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2005)
People v. Kimble
684 N.W.2d 669 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2004)
Central Ceiling & Partition, Inc. v. Department of Commerce
683 N.W.2d 142 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2004)
Central Ceiling & Partition, Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce
672 N.W.2d 511 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2003)
People v. McLaughlin
672 N.W.2d 860 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2003)
People v. Witherspoon
670 N.W.2d 434 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2003)
In Re Request for Advisory Opinion
658 N.W.2d 124 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2003)