Winfrey v. Farhat
This text of 161 N.W.2d 756 (Winfrey v. Farhat) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Plaintiffs’ medical malpractice cause of action was dismissed by accelerated judgment based on tbe fact that the statute of limitations
The deposition of the plaintiff Iva M. Winfrey was properly received, and considered under GfCÉ 1963, 116.3, which provides in part that affidavits as well as other evidence may be considered on the motion.
The record on appeal contains uncontroverted facts which establish that plaintiff Iva M. Winfrey’s claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
Affirmed. Costs to appellees.
CLS 1961, § 600.5805 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev § 27A.5805).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
161 N.W.2d 756, 11 Mich. App. 579, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1333, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winfrey-v-farhat-michctapp-1968.