Narrative Opinion Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on January 5, 2007, regarding the case TRI-COUNTY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, INC. and IDEALEASE OF FLINT v. HILLS’ PET NUTRITION, INC. The Court denied the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment from October 25, 2005, indicating that the issues presented did not warrant further review. Justice Corrigan expressed a partial dissent, arguing that the Court should consider whether the defendant has a contractual duty to indemnify Tri-County International Trucks, Inc., and she would reverse part of the Court of Appeals' judgment based on Judge Zahra’s dissenting opinion. Justice Markman supported Justice Corrigan’s statement. The order was certified by Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Addressed
Contractual Duty to Indemnifysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Corrigan argued that the Court should examine whether the defendant has a contractual obligation to indemnify Tri-County International Trucks, Inc., suggesting a reversal of part of the appellate court's decision.
Reasoning: Justice Corrigan expressed a partial dissent, arguing that the Court should consider whether the defendant has a contractual duty to indemnify Tri-County International Trucks, Inc., and she would reverse part of the Court of Appeals' judgment based on Judge Zahra’s dissenting opinion.
Denial of Leave to Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Michigan Supreme Court declined to review the case further as the issues presented were not considered significant enough for additional examination.
Reasoning: The Court denied the application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment from October 25, 2005, indicating that the issues presented did not warrant further review.
Judicial Dissentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Corrigan and Justice Markman disagreed with the majority decision, with Justice Corrigan advocating for a review of indemnification obligations and Justice Markman supporting her position.
Reasoning: Justice Corrigan expressed a partial dissent... Justice Markman supported Justice Corrigan’s statement.