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.

Cole v. YUSAF

Citations: 708 N.W.2d 379; 474 Mich. 1019Docket: 129167

Court: Michigan Supreme Court; January 26, 2006; Michigan; State Supreme Court

Original Court Document: View Document

Narrative Opinion Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court issued an order on January 27, 2006, regarding the case involving plaintiffs Karen Cole and Kevin Cole against defendants Mohammad M. Yusaf, M.D., Wyandotte Hospital Medical Center, and Henry Ford Health System. The Court considered the plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment from April 26, 2005, but ultimately denied the application. The Court expressed that it was not persuaded that the issues raised warranted review. Justice Kelly indicated a dissenting opinion, expressing a willingness to grant leave to appeal. The Clerk of the Court, Corbin R. Davis, certified the order as a true and complete copy.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certification of Judicial Orders

Application: The Clerk of the Court formally certified the order, ensuring its authenticity and completeness.

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

Denial of Leave to Appeal

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Reasoning: The Court considered the plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal the Court of Appeals' judgment from April 26, 2005, but ultimately denied the application.

Dissenting Opinion on Appeal

Application: Justice Kelly expressed a dissenting opinion, indicating a perspective that differed from the majority by showing support for granting the appeal.

Reasoning: Justice Kelly indicated a dissenting opinion, expressing a willingness to grant leave to appeal.

Judicial Discretion in Granting Appeals

Application: The Michigan Supreme Court exercised its discretion in determining that the issues raised by the plaintiffs did not warrant further review.

Reasoning: The Court expressed that it was not persuaded that the issues raised warranted review.