HomeCase briefs › Torts

Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners of Kent County

Supreme Court of Michigan · 1947 · Torts
Tortstortsrehearinginsufficient opinion textmajority opinion only

Facts

The only majority-opinion text provided is 'On Rehearing.' No factual narrative appears in the supplied text. As a result, the parties' dispute, the alleged injury, and the conduct at issue cannot be determined from the record provided. Any further factual statement would go beyond the supplied majority opinion.

Issue

Because the only supplied majority text is 'On Rehearing,' no specific legal issue can be identified from the opinion text provided. The most that can be said is that the case was reconsidered on rehearing by the Supreme Court of Michigan.

Rule

No black-letter rule or test can be stated from the supplied majority text alone, because it contains no reasoning, legal standard, or substantive disposition beyond noting rehearing.

🔒

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
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a first-year Torts class in Cleveland, Maya Lin is assigned to brief an appellate decision. The only majority-opinion text provided by her professor is a single line stating, "On Rehearing."

If Maya is asked to state the substantive tort rule established by the decision, which is the best answer?

Explanation. The supplied majority text contains only the phrase "On Rehearing." From that alone, one may identify only the procedural posture that the case was before the court on rehearing. No facts, issue, rule, reasoning, or substantive holding can be extracted without impermissibly going beyond the majority text. (Derived from Rogers v. Board of Road Commissioners of Kent County (1947).)