Spitzley v. Spitzley

728 N.W.2d 228, 477 Mich. 1043
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Spitzley v. Spitzley. Read the opinion of the Court — 477 Mich. 989
Michigan Supreme Court·Decided March 21, 2007·No. 130585·Published

Opinion

728 N.W.2d 228 (2007)

Michael Francis SPITZLEY, Personal Representative of the Estate of David A. Spitzley, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Thomas P. SPITZLEY and Kimberly S. Spitzley, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 130585. COA No. 255345.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

March 21, 2007.

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court's January 12, *229 2007 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.

MARKMAN, J., dissents and states as follows:

For the reasons set forth in my dissenting statement in Spitzley v. Spitzley, 477 Mich. 989, 725 N.W.2d 464 (2007), I would grant the motion for reconsideration, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and strike the sanctions against defendants.

MARILYN J. KELLY and CORRIGAN, JJ., join the statement of MARKMAN, J.

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

Spitzley v. Spitzley, 728 N.W.2d 228, 477 Mich. 1043 (Mich. 2007).

728 N.W.2d 228 (Spitzley v. Spitzley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spitzley v. Spitzley
725 N.W.2d 464 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2007)