Anderson v. Baughman
Cases that cite this one
3 later published cases cite this decision.
- Jeffrey Haksluoto v. Mt Clemens Regional Medical Center (Mich. 2017)
- Fowler v. Anderson (Mich. Ct. App. 1970)
- Barber Asphalt Paving Co. v. Muchenberger (Mo. Ct. App. 1904)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The notice is sufficient. Rule 1 governs this case.
Rulo 7 is as follows: “The day on which any rule shall be entered, or order, notice, pleading, or paper served, shall be excluded in the computation of the time for complying with the exigency of such rule, order or notice, pleading or paper, and
The rule in respect to notices of hearing is as follows: “Rule 26. Notices of special motions, and of the argument of calendar causes, when necessary, shall be notices of at least ten days where the attorney of the adverse party resides over one hundred miles from the place of hearing; if over fifty and less than one hundred miles, of at least six days, and in all other cases of at least four days; and a copy of the affidavits and other papers on which any motion shall be made, shall be served with such notice.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.