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.

RUMFIELD v. Henney

Citations: 741 N.W.2d 12; 480 Mich. 944Docket: 132755

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; November 20, 2007; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on November 21, 2007, regarding the case of Timothy Rumfield, representing the estate of Daniel Rumfield, against defendants Matthew Henney, Brian Henney, and Kelly Fuels, Inc. The Court denied the applications for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment dated September 26, 2006, as well as the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant, citing a lack of persuasion that the issues warranted review. Additionally, the motion for peremptory reversal was also denied. Justice Cavanagh expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating he would have granted leave to appeal. The order was certified by Clerk Corbin R. Davis.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Applications for Leave to Appeal

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court denied the applications for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals, indicating no persuasive reason to warrant review of the issues presented.

Reasoning: The Court denied the applications for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment dated September 26, 2006, as well as the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant, citing a lack of persuasion that the issues warranted review.

Denial of Motion for Peremptory Reversal

Application: The motion for peremptory reversal was denied by the Michigan Supreme Court, maintaining the decision of the lower court without further review.

Reasoning: Additionally, the motion for peremptory reversal was also denied.

Dissenting Opinion on Granting Leave to Appeal

Application: Justice Cavanagh expressed a dissenting opinion, suggesting that he believed the case warranted a review and would have granted leave to appeal.

Reasoning: Justice Cavanagh expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating he would have granted leave to appeal.