Pim, Inc. v. Steinbichler Optical Tech. USA, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Bruce Klaasen v. Dennis Jonker (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
- Bruce Klaasen v. Dennis Jonker (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
- David J McQueer v. Perfect Fence Company (Mich. 2018)
- Bagby v. Detroit Edison Company (Mich. Ct. App. 2014)
- Rosengarten v. MacSteel Monroe, Inc. (6th Cir. 2007)
- Holtec Int'l Corp. v. Mich. State Util. Workers Council (6th Cir. 2025)
- Zafer J Ali v. Siblini Bakery Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2019)
- Anthony Johnson d/b/a First National Home Management/Consultant v. Westfield Insurance Company (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2019)
- Spencer Shumaker v. Meritt Tool & Die (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
- Spencer Shumaker v. Meritt Tool & Die (Mich. Ct. App. 2018)
- Jeremy Hetterscheidt v. Aleris Specification Alloys (6th Cir. 2017)
- Estate of Ryan Charles v. Spartan Steel Coating LLC (Mich. Ct. App. 2016)
- Howard-Johnson v. V & S Detroit Galvanizing, LLC (District Court, E.D. Michigan 2012)
- Anthony Pellegrino v. Ampco Systems Parking (Mich. 2010)
- Duray Development, LLC v. Perrin (Mich. Ct. App. 2010)
- House v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (6th Cir. 2007)
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
PIM, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
STEINBICHLER OPTICAL TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., Derek Milligan and Michael S. Burgess, Defendants-Appellants, and
B-M Intellectual Properties, Defendant.
Steinbichler Optical Technologies USA, Inc., Derek Milligan and Michael S. Burgess, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
PIM, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, and
Venture Heavy Machinery, L.L.C., Deluxe Pattern Corporation and Larry Winget, Proposed Intervening Defendants.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the September 4, 2001 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The trial court's order dismissing Oakland Circuit Court No. 99-014105-CK is REVERSED. The trial court's order denying the motion to intervene and granting summary disposition to the plaintiffs in Oakland Circuit Court No. 99-014097-CK is also REVERSED. The misnomer of a person or corporation in a written instrument will not defeat a recovery thereon if the identity sufficiently appears from the name employed in the writing *74 or is satisfactorily established by proof. St. Matthew's Evangelical Lutheran Church v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 222 Mich. 256, 192 N.W. 784 (1923). Here, the fact that P.I.M. Management Company was described in the contract as "PIM, Inc." is immaterial. It does not appear that any fraudulent intent was involved or that anyone was in any way deceived. Bil-Gel Company v. Thoma, 345 Mich. 698, 77 N.W.2d 89 (1956).
The matter is REMANDED to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with this order.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.