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.

Russell Plastering Co. v. Mich. Const. Industry Mut. Ins. Co.

Citations: 753 N.W.2d 165; 482 Mich. 898Docket: 136508

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; July 29, 2008; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on July 29, 2008, regarding the case involving Russell Plastering Company as the Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee against Michigan Construction Industry Mutual Insurance Company as the Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant, along with Chlystek White Services, Inc. and Timothy Kuiper as additional defendants. The Court denied the motion for immediate consideration and the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' April 22, 2008 order, stating that the question presented did not warrant review. Additionally, the motion for a stay of trial court proceedings was deemed moot. The order was certified by Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Addressed

Appellate Review Standards

Application: The Supreme Court determined that the issues raised in the appeal did not meet the criteria for the Court's review.

Reasoning: The Court denied the motion for immediate consideration and the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' April 22, 2008 order, stating that the question presented did not warrant review.

Denial of Motion for Immediate Consideration

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court declined to expedite the review process requested by the appellant.

Reasoning: The Court denied the motion for immediate consideration and the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' April 22, 2008 order, stating that the question presented did not warrant review.

Mootness of Stay Motion

Application: The request to halt the trial court proceedings was considered irrelevant following the denial of the appeal.

Reasoning: Additionally, the motion for a stay of trial court proceedings was deemed moot.