Charpentier v. Young
| Citation | 403 Mich. 851,291 N.W.2d 926 |
| Decision Date | 30 November 1978 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 61446 |
| Parties | Irene CHARPENTIER and Ludger Charpentier, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Francis R. YOUNG and Margaret Lovernick, City of Ferndale, Department of Police, Defendants, and Benny Chincarini and Margaret Chincarini d/b/a Gay Paree Lounge, Clarence M. Jones d/b/a Golden Gate Lounge and Charles Lamoureaux d/b/a Intimate Lounge, jointly and severally, Defendants- Appellees. 403 Mich. 851, 291 N.W.2d 926 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
ORDER
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered and, pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), in lieu of leave to appeal, the Court of Appeals is REVERSED, 83 Mich.App. 145, 268 N.W.2d 322, the trial court's accelerated judgments in favor of defendants-appellees are set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. The statute of limitations was tolled for 21 days, from March 10 to March 31, 1976, the time during which the motion to amend complaint and add parties defendant was pending, plaintiffs having demonstrated due diligence by seeking a decision on their motion within three weeks.
To continue reading
Request your trial
20 cases
-
Smith v. Michigan Employment Sec. Commission, Docket Nos. 62991
...26 Similar action has been taken in the past. In Holdridge v. Tecumseh Products Co., 80 Mich.App. 310, 263 N.W.2d 600 (1977), lv. den. 403 Mich. 851 (1978), the Court of Appeals incorporated a "fear of violence" exception into the labor dispute disqualification and granted compensation to e......
-
R.A. Jones & Sons, Inc. v. Holman
...grants the motion for leave to amend. It leaves unanswered what happens where the court denies the motion. Compare Charpentier v. Young, 403 Mich. 851, 291 N.W.2d 926 (1978), and Fazzalare v. Desa Industries, Inc., 135 Mich.App. 1, 351 N.W.2d 886 (1984), in which the courts held that the st......
-
Ringrose v. Engelberg Huller Co., Inc.
...the diligence of plaintiff in discovering the proper defendant to determine whether the complaint relates back. See Charpentier v. Young, 403 Mich. 851, 291 N.W.2d 926 (1978), reversing, 83 Mich.App. 145, 268 N.W.2d 322 (1978); O'Keefe v. Clark Equipment Co., 106 Mich.App. 23, 307 N.W.2d 34......
-
Thomas v. Process Equipment Corp.
...have us believe. Plaintiffs rely on Charpentier v. Young, 83 Mich.App. 145, 268 N.W.2d 322 (1978), rev'd on other grounds 403 Mich. 851, 291 N.W.2d 926 (1978). By order, the Supreme Court held that the period of limitation was tolled during the time in which the motion to amend the complain......
Request a trial to view additional results