You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Lafontaine Saline Inc v. Chrysler Group LLC

Citation: Not availableDocket: 146722

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; October 2, 2013; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted LaFontaine Saline, Inc.'s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the case against Chrysler Group LLC. The Court has also granted the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment from November 27, 2012. The parties are instructed to address whether the definition of “relevant market area” under the 2010 PA 139 (MCL 445.1566(1)(a)) allows the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3). The Court references the case Kia Motors America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc for comparison. Furthermore, the Court has ordered that this case be argued and submitted alongside another case (Docket No. 146724) during a future session. Interested parties may request permission to file amicus curiae briefs. The order was certified by Clerk Larry S. Royster on October 2, 2013.

Legal Issues Addressed

Amicus Curiae Briefs

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court allows interested parties to contribute to the case by granting leave to file amicus curiae briefs.

Reasoning: The Michigan Supreme Court has granted LaFontaine Saline, Inc.'s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in the case against Chrysler Group LLC.

Appeal Procedure

Application: The Court grants leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals, indicating procedural progression to a higher review.

Reasoning: The Court has also granted the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment from November 27, 2012.

Comparative Case Law

Application: The Court references a precedent case for comparative legal analysis.

Reasoning: The Court references the case Kia Motors America, Inc v Glassman Oldsmobile Saab Hyundai, Inc for comparison.

Consolidation of Cases

Application: The Court orders that this case be argued and submitted together with another related case to streamline judicial proceedings.

Reasoning: Furthermore, the Court has ordered that this case be argued and submitted alongside another case (Docket No. 146724) during a future session.

Filing Amicus Curiae Briefs

Application: The Court provides an opportunity for interested parties to request permission to file amicus curiae briefs, indicating openness to broader input.

Reasoning: Interested parties may request permission to file amicus curiae briefs.

Interpretation of 'Relevant Market Area'

Application: The case involves determining whether the statutory definition allows a challenge to a dealer agreement, requiring interpretation of specific Michigan legislation.

Reasoning: The parties are instructed to address whether the definition of 'relevant market area' under the 2010 PA 139 (MCL 445.1566(1)(a)) allows the plaintiff to challenge the future dealer agreement between the defendants under MCL 445.1576(3).