Pacheco v. Clifton, 68327

Decision Date18 February 1983
Docket NumberNo. 68327,68327
Citation330 N.W.2d 849,417 Mich. 888
PartiesFrederick PACHECO, Jr., and Cynthia Pacheco, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Clayton CLIFTON, Bruce Jellison, and General Motors Corporation, a foreign corporation, Defendants-Appellants. 417 Mich. 888, 330 N.W.2d 849
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
ORDER

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal and delayed application for leave to appeal as cross appellant are considered, and they are GRANTED, 109 Mich.App. 563, 311 N.W.2d 801.

It is further ORDERED that this case be argued and submitted to the Court together with the case of Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell Telephone Company (Docket No. 70044), one immediately following the other, at such future session of the Court as both cases are ready for submission for decision.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Boscaglia v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Docket Nos. 68327
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 28, 1984
    ...motion to reinstate, and the Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal. This Court granted her application for leave to appeal. 417 Mich. 888, 330 N.W.2d 849 (1983).5 It appears that Pacheco also received sickness and accident benefits for the period from April 16 through May 31, 1975, althou......
  • Barnes v. Double Seal Glass Co., Inc., Plant 1
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 15, 1983
    ...Host, Inc., 122 Mich.App. 411, 332 N.W.2d 498 (1983); Pacheco v. Clifton, 109 Mich.App. 563, 311 N.W.2d 801 (1981), lv. gtd. 417 Mich. 888, 330 N.W.2d 849 (1983), and Stimson v. Bell Telephone Co., 77 Mich.App. 361, 258 N.W.2d 227 (1977), all held that injuries resulting from employment dis......
  • Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • April 1, 1985
    ...clearly outside the scope of the WDCA. Slayton, supra; Pacheco v. Clifton, 109 Mich.App. 563, 311 N.W.2d 801 (1981), lv. gtd. 417 Mich. 888, 330 N.W.2d 849 (1983), and Stimson v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., 77 Mich.App. 361, 258 N.W.2d 227 (1977). The distinction between contractual claims......
  • Tebo v. Havlik, 68033
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1983

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT