Hickey v. LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, HERSKOVIC and DOMOL, PC
Hickey v. LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, HERSKOVIC and DOMOL, PC
722 N.W.2d 887; 477 Mich. 924; 2006 Mich. LEXIS 2546
(North Western Reporter, Second Series)
Cases that cite this one
1 later published case cites this decision.
- COUNTY OF CRAWFORD v. County of Otsego (Mich. 2006)
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
Phillip D. HICKEY and Carol Haidy-Hickey, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LOPATIN, MILLER, FREEDMAN, BLUESTONE, HERSKOVIC and DOMOL, P.C., Defendant-Appellee, and
Sheldon Miller, Defendant.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 28, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we *888 are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MARILYN J. KELLY, J., would grant leave to appeal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.