The order contains no majority recitation of the underlying facts. The only operative majority action is that defendant sought leave to appeal from a Court of Appeals judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The Supreme Court denied leave to appeal.
Issue
Whether the Michigan Supreme Court would grant leave to review the question presented from the Court of Appeals' judgment.
Rule
When considering an application for leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court may deny leave if it is not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed. A denial of leave in this order does not announce a substantive tort rule on the merits.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a products-liability case from Detroit, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a machine seller could be liable despite the worker's misuse. The seller sought leave to appeal, and the Michigan Supreme Court entered a one-sentence order stating that leave was denied because the Court was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed.
In a later case, the worker argues that the Supreme Court's denial established binding Michigan law approving the Court of Appeals' reasoning on misuse. Which is the best response?
Explanation. The majority order states only that leave is denied because the Court is not persuaded the question should be reviewed. Under that order, the Court did not adopt or reject the lower court's substantive reasoning. The key doctrinal point is procedural: denial of discretionary review does not itself resolve the merits of the tort question.