Woodward v. Keenan

Michigan Court of Appeals

Woodward v. Keenan

88 Mich. App. 791

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 6, 1979

DocketDocket No. 30820

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 Mich. App. 791 (Woodward v. Keenan) 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.

Bluebook

Woodward v. Keenan, 88 Mich. App. 791 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In our original opinion, 79 Mich App 543; 261 NW2d 80 (1977), we remanded the matter to the trial court for limited discovery to determine the adequacy of defendants’ contacts with the State of Michigan for purposes of MCL 600.705(1); MSA 27A.705(1), MCL 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725QL). Pursuant thereto, the court below determined that defendants maintained no contracts or referral services with anyone in the state, nor did they engage in any program designed to encourage Michigan residents to make use of defendant clinic.

As defendants lacked sufficient due-process ties with this state making them amenable to the jurisdiction of our courts, we therefore affirm the court’s grant of accelerated judgment for want of in personam jurisdiction, GCR 1963, 116.1(1), in accordance with our prior decision.

No costs, the construction of statues being involved.

P. R. Mahinske, J., not participating.

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

Per Curiam.

In our original opinion, 79 Mich App 543; 261 NW2d 80 (1977), we remanded the matter to the trial court for limited discovery to determine the adequacy of defendants’ contacts with the State of Michigan for purposes of MCL 600.705(1); MSA 27A.705(1), MCL 600.725(1); MSA 27A.725QL). Pursuant thereto, the court below determined that defendants maintained no contracts or referral services with anyone in the state, nor did they engage in any program designed to encourage Michigan residents to make use of defendant clinic.

As defendants lacked sufficient due-process ties with this state making them amenable to the jurisdiction of our courts, we therefore affirm the court’s grant of accelerated judgment for want of in personam jurisdiction, GCR 1963, 116.1(1), in accordance with our prior decision.

No costs, the construction of statues being involved.

P. R. Mahinske, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 Mich. App. 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodward-v-keenan-michctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack