Search for: "Cavanagh v. Kelly" Results 41 - 60 of 91
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jul 2012, 11:22 am by Madelaine Lane
Justice Cavanagh authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Marilyn Kelly and Hathaway, and wrote that under Joba Constr. [read post]
17 Nov 2011, 1:41 pm by Julie Lam
” Justices Cavanagh, Marilyn Kelly, and Hathaway would grant leave to appeal. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 4:19 pm by Sarah Riley Howard
The majority opinion, written by Justice Marilyn Kelly and joined by Justices Young, Cavanagh, Hathaway and Zahra, found that the verdict was consistent with due process. [read post]
12 Jul 2010, 2:04 pm by Nicole Mazzocco
Chief Justice Kelly dissented, joined by Justices Cavanagh and Hathaway. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 8:44 am
 Justice Kelly, writing for herself and Justice Cavanagh, concurred in part and dissented in part. [read post]
25 Jun 2012, 7:45 am by Jeanne Long
Justice Cavanagh, joined by Justice Marilyn Kelly, dissented in part. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 10:40 am by Matthew Nelson
   Chief Justice Kelly and Justices Cavanagh and Hathaway dissented. [read post]
3 Aug 2009, 10:05 am
Justice Hathaway wrote the Court’s opinion, which was joined by Justices Kelly, Cavanagh, and Weaver. [read post]
12 May 2010, 1:48 pm by Matthew Nelson
  The Court also rejected Chief Justice Kelly’s proposed amendment to the rule by a 5-2 vote with Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Cavanagh in dissent. [read post]
29 Apr 2011, 1:39 pm by Jeanne Long
  Justice Cavanagh concurred in result only, and Justices Kelly and Hathaway each filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 1:26 pm by Matthew Nelson
  Chief Justice Kelly and Justice Cavanagh fully concurred except as to Justice Davis’s holding that diverting contaminated water from one watershed to another is manifestly unreasonable. [read post]
9 Jun 2012, 1:17 pm by Sarah Riley Howard
The dissent, authored by Justice Marilyn Kelly and joined by Justices Cavanagh and Hathaway, argued that MCL 768.27a(1) impermissibly intruded upon the Court’s rule-making providence, and therefore could not be upheld. [read post]