Stone v. RW Lapine, Inc

Michigan Supreme Court

Stone v. RW Lapine, Inc

764 N.W.2d 574, 483 Mich. 1007

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMay 8, 2009

Docket136438

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 764 N.W.2d 574 (Stone v. RW Lapine, Inc) 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

Stone v. RW Lapine, Inc, 764 N.W.2d 574, 483 Mich. 1007 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Reconsideration Granted May 8, 2009:

The motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is granted. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 17,2008, order is granted, in part. On reconsideration, we modify our order dated September 17,2008, by adding the following language at the end of the order: “Although the magistrate did not err by choosing to utilize MCL 418.371(6) to calculate the plaintiffs average weekly wage, he did err by failing to apply the specific formula provided in subsection 6. We remand this case to the Board of Magistrates for a recalculation of the plaintiffs average weekly wage using the formula stated in MCL 418.371(6).” In all other respects, the motion for reconsideration is denied. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 275684.

Corrigan, J. I would deny reconsideration.

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

Reconsideration Granted May 8, 2009:

The motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is granted. The motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 17,2008, order is granted, in part. On reconsideration, we modify our order dated September 17,2008, by adding the following language at the end of the order: “Although the magistrate did not err by choosing to utilize MCL 418.371(6) to calculate the plaintiffs average weekly wage, he did err by failing to apply the specific formula provided in subsection 6. We remand this case to the Board of Magistrates for a recalculation of the plaintiffs average weekly wage using the formula stated in MCL 418.371(6).” In all other respects, the motion for reconsideration is denied. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 275684.

Corrigan, J. I would deny reconsideration.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

764 N.W.2d 574, 483 Mich. 1007, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stone-v-rw-lapine-inc-mich-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack