Young v. Nandi

Michigan Supreme Court

Young v. Nandi

759 N.W.2d 400, 483 Mich. 880

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 27, 2009

Docket134799

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 759 N.W.2d 400 (Young v. Nandi) 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

Young v. Nandi, 759 N.W.2d 400, 483 Mich. 880 (Mich. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for Clarification Granted January 27, 2009:

On order of the Court, the motion for clarification of this Court’s October 3, 2008, order is considered, and it is granted. For the reasons stated in that order, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for a hearing concerning attorney fees in the plaintiffs favor as case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b). “Under the facts of this case, such a hearing was necessary.” In our October 3, 2008 order, we remanded this case to the Oakland Circuit Court “for a hearing on the subject of a reasonable attorney fee, consistent with Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (2008).” We clarify, however, that such a hearing shall occur only if the Oakland Circuit Court first determines, on remand, that the plaintiff is still entitled to case evaluation sanctions in light of the rulings made by the Court of Appeals. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 266261.

Cavanagh and Weaver, JJ. We would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.

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

Motion for Clarification Granted January 27, 2009:

On order of the Court, the motion for clarification of this Court’s October 3, 2008, order is considered, and it is granted. For the reasons stated in that order, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s denial of the defendants’ request for a hearing concerning attorney fees in the plaintiffs favor as case evaluation sanctions under MCR 2.403(O)(6)(b). “Under the facts of this case, such a hearing was necessary.” In our October 3, 2008 order, we remanded this case to the Oakland Circuit Court “for a hearing on the subject of a reasonable attorney fee, consistent with Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 (2008).” We clarify, however, that such a hearing shall occur only if the Oakland Circuit Court first determines, on remand, that the plaintiff is still entitled to case evaluation sanctions in light of the rulings made by the Court of Appeals. We do not retain jurisdiction. Court of Appeals No. 266261.

Cavanagh and Weaver, JJ. We would grant reconsideration and, on reconsideration, would grant leave to appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

759 N.W.2d 400, 483 Mich. 880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-nandi-mich-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack