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.

Wireless Toyz Franchise Llc v. Clear Choice Communication Inc

Citation: Not availableDocket: 145843

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; February 5, 2013; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on February 6, 2013, regarding the case between Wireless Toyz Franchise, L.L.C. (plaintiff/counter-defendant-appellee) and Clear Choice Communication, Inc., along with associated defendants (defendants/counter-plaintiffs-appellants). The Court reviewed the application for leave to appeal from the May 31, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals. Instead of granting leave, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, aligning with the dissenting opinion from that court. The Supreme Court reinstated the Oakland Circuit Court's March 29, 2011 order, which had denied the defendants’ motion to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award. The Clerk of the Court, Corbin R. Davis, certified the order as a true and complete copy.

Legal Issues Addressed

Arbitration Award Confirmation

Application: The Supreme Court reinstated the lower court's order confirming the arbitration award, emphasizing the finality of arbitration decisions.

Reasoning: The Supreme Court reinstated the Oakland Circuit Court's March 29, 2011 order, which had denied the defendants’ motion to vacate an arbitration award and confirmed the award.

Certification of Court Orders

Application: The Clerk of the Court is responsible for certifying the accuracy and completeness of court orders, ensuring official records are maintained.

Reasoning: The Clerk of the Court, Corbin R. Davis, certified the order as a true and complete copy.

Review of Appellate Court Decisions

Application: The Supreme Court has the authority to reverse a Court of Appeals decision by aligning with a dissenting opinion, demonstrating the Court's role in ensuring legal consistency.

Reasoning: Instead of granting leave, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ judgment, aligning with the dissenting opinion from that court.