Search for: "People in Interest of MCL" Results 41 - 60 of 85
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Nov 2020, 11:32 am
page=getObject&objectName=mcl-750-165 https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/DHS-PUB-748_209001_7.pdfRead More [read post]
11 Dec 2013, 4:10 am by Steven Gursten
That leads to an interesting observation on this auto law blog about how No Fault insurance benefits work when people injured in these van accidents must make a claim. [read post]
31 Jan 2012, 9:04 am by Madelaine Lane
  Additionally, the Court remanded the case of People v. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 5:31 am by Matthew Benedict
Anyone contemplating representing themselves should take a look at the statute, MCL 780.621, available here. [read post]
13 Nov 2019, 5:31 am by Matthew Benedict
Anyone contemplating representing themselves should take a look at the statute, MCL 780.621, available here. [read post]
5 Feb 2013, 4:57 am by admin
The rub, is that it has a lot of consumer advocates, Michigan insurance lawyers and lawyers who help people with no fault insurance claims, insurance industry watchdogs, and people worried about the glaring conflict of interest this presents all shaking their collective heads together wondering how this ever happened. [read post]
9 Nov 2009, 1:57 pm
 The Court held that, in order to place the plaintiff in this position, he should be allowed to relinquish title to the RV and given damages including “the purchase price of the vehicle less the sum paid to plaintiff pursuant to case evaluation, repayment of the interest paid on the loan, and statutory interest pursuant to MCL 600.6013(8). [read post]
17 Jun 2011, 8:46 am by Julie Lam
  Persons or groups interested may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae on either or both sides of the submitted questions. [read post]
8 Jul 2016, 10:48 am
Sedenquist, supra.The court goes on to explain that [o]ur Supreme Court recently interpreted MCL 750.213 in People v. [read post]
20 Feb 2019, 2:44 pm by admin
INTRODUCTION On September 28, 2004, the United States Supreme Court granted a property owner’s application for leave from a Connecticut Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of the community’s taking of property with the specified purpose of creating jobs by selling the property to a private industrial user.1 As the petitioner land owners in Kelo express in their brief requesting leave, the critical question for the Court to determine is whether a taking for purely… [read post]