Sentences with phrase «summary disposition»

Our attorneys have an impressive track record of obtaining summary disposition of cases prior to trial and are also skilled at resolving disputes using alternative means such as arbitration and mediation.

So when a motorcycle injury is caused by defective pavement, motorcycle accident attorneys need to be prepared to defend against motions for summary disposition based on governmental immunity.

And they realize how much it can cost to defend a claim, even if it does not have any merit, just to get it to a motion for summary disposition.

Plaintiffs appealed an order granting summary disposition in favor of the defendant in a Michigan premises liability action involving an attack on the plaintiffs» dog, Axle.

TD Land, Co, Inc v Phillip R Seaver Title Co, Inc Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 236573 (December 21, 2002)(reversing decision granting summary disposition on legal malpractice case based upon apparent authority to enter into agreement)

While able to take cases to trial and appeal, if necessary, Bob has obtained success in recent cases by an aggressive summary disposition practice and use of settlement.

Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition based on Node / kinder; supra.

Citing Dingwall v Dornan, 2014 ABCA 89 (CanLII) at para. 19 and WP v Alberta, 2014 ABCA 404 (CanLII) at para. 16 (among others), the Court of Appeal found summary disposition by a Chambers Judge is discretionary — to be reviewed for reasonableness and entitled to deference, absent palpable and overriding error.

Lyons v Kinsel Court of Appeals Docket Nos 329584, 329597, 329607 (April 25, 2017)(affirming trial court decision to deny summary disposition for lack of personal jurisdiction)

Alberta and British Columbia already had expansive summary disposition regimes before Hryniak's arrival.

amounts to no more than another tool to better enable the motion judge to determine whether it is safe to proceed with summary disposition rather than requiring a trial.

A plaintiff appealed the lower court's grant of summary disposition under MCR 2.116 (C)(7) in favor of the defendant in a Michigan motorcycle accident case.

There's no need for anybody to be concerned that Ontario courts will ever be unclogged so long as each attempt by the Rules Committee to produce a mechanism for summary disposition of actions is frustrated by those judges who find issues warranting trials lurking under every rock.

Naz v Agron Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 259110 (April 21, 2006)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition on claims because they were subject to agreement to arbitrate)

Kosmalski v Willard Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 247697 (September 23, 2004)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition in quiet title action)

Bill and Dena Brown Trust v Garcia 312 Mich App 684; 880 NW2d 269 (2015)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition on undue influence claim and interpreting trust instrument)

A defendant appealed an order denying his motion for summary disposition in a Michigan slip and fall case.

Yesterday, in a brief order published at the head of an otherwise miscellaneous list, the Supreme Court made a summary disposition of University of Notre Dame v. Burwell, the case involving the university's resistance to the HHS contraception - sterilization - abortifacient mandate under Obamacare.

However, he openly criticised both in - house counsel and external solicitors acting for the defendant for not producing or preserving key information (in this case, phone and e-mail records that would support or be adverse to their contentions) which could have led to the summary disposition of the case, or at least the more efficient conduct of the case at trial.

He has tried more than 30 cases to verdict (both bench trials and jury trials), has disposed of hundreds of cases prior to trial as a result of summary disposition or settlement and has also served as outside general counsel to several local businesses.

The full appreciation test functioned as a judicially created benchmark for determining when the interest of justice required a trial, as opposed to summary disposition.

So what that is, is, I gave the example of defending a claim that, even if doesn't have merit, defense counsel's gonna have to go out there and file a motion for summary disposition, and engage in some discovery, and there will be costs.

Kosis v. City of Livonia deals with a section of the summary disposition court rule that doesn't come up all that often in no - fault law.

Fonstad v Teal Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 254051 (July 21, 2005)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition to client on claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, innocent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotion distress and concert of action)

Giordano v Markovitz Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 232793 (June 17, 2003)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition to client on claim for accounting arising out of business dispute)

Detroit School District v URS Corporation Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 267715 (July 27, 2006)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition on third - party complaint for indemnification and unjust enrichment)

Watts v Polaczyk 242 Mich App 600; 619 NW2d 714 (2000)(affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client and determining that arbitration clauses in attorney retainer agreements are enforceable)

Tobias v Archbold Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 241048 (December 4, 2003)(affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to clients on quiet title action)

Craig v Silverman Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 265155 (April 21, 2006)(affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client on legal malpractice action arising out of medical malpractice case)

Tri-County Petroleum, Inc v ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 262279 (November 22, 2005)(affirming decision to grant summary disposition to client on quiet title action)

Ruby Associates v Shore Financial 276 Mich App 110; 741 NW2d 72 (2007), vacated in part, affirmed in part, 480 Mich 1107, 745 NW2d 752 (2008)(affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client in quiet title action)

Special Properties v Woodruff 273 Mich App 586; 730 NW2d 753 (2007)(reversing trial court decision granting summary disposition to plaintiff and remanding for entry of judgment in favor of defendant on quiet title action)

Karam v Law Offices of Ralph J Kliber 253 Mich App 410; 655 NW2d 614 (2002)(affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client and defining limited scope of duties that attorneys owe to non-clients when preparing testamentary documents)

Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Michigan 498 Mich 68; 869 NW2d 213 (2015)(reversing Court of Appeals and reinstating trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client on statute of limitations grounds because plaintiff failed to follow notice of intent requirements after clarifying interaction between MCL 600.1901, 600.2301 and 600.2912 b)

Stasson v Paragon Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 269997 (December 13, 2006)(granting motion to affirm trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client on breach of insurance contract claim)

Ambrose v Fried Michigan Court of Appeal Docket No 249482 (November 30, 2004)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition to client because statute of limitations barred legal malpractice claim)

ABN AMRO Mortgage Group v Household Mortgage Michigan Court of Appeals Docket Nos 265518, 266274 (August 8, 2006)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition to client on equitable subrogation and slander of title claims)

Sexton v Sumner Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 204192 (August 24, 1999)(affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client on legal malpractice action arising out of claim and delivery action)

AAA Mortgage Corp v Legghio Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 239016 (October 28, 2003)(affirming lower court decision to grant summary disposition to clients on claims of equitable subrogation, indemnification and contribution)

Berman v Ribitwer Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No 246870 (August 17, 2004)(affirming trial court decision to grant summary disposition to client on legal malpractice action arising out of divorce action)