From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pernell v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jul 31, 2009
484 Mich. 852 (Mich. 2009)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

holding that a party abandons an issue by "fail[ing] to sufficiently brief [it] for appellate consideration

Summary of this case from In re Propp
See 4 Summaries

Opinion

Nos. 138417 and 138418.

July 31, 2009.

Court of Appeals Nos. 279825 and 279837.

Leave to Appeal Denied.

MARKMAN, J. (dissenting).

I would grant leave to appeal to consider whether the Court of Appeals properly extended Darnell v. Auto-Owners Ins Co, 142 Mich. App 1 (1985), to hold defendant liable for plaintiffs personal protection insurance benefits after defendant began paying those benefits, but then ceased after determining that another insurer had priority. Because Darnell, supra at 12, considered a priority dispute in the context of determining liability for attorney fees pursuant to MCL 500.3148, I question its relevance in determining liability for actual benefits.

Summaries of

Pernell v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jul 31, 2009
484 Mich. 852 (Mich. 2009)

holding that a party abandons an issue by "fail[ing] to sufficiently brief [it] for appellate consideration

Summary of this case from In re Propp

declining to decide an insufficiently briefed issue

Summary of this case from Swider v. David McHugh Tr.

stating that the overriding concern in a child custody matter is the child's best interests

Summary of this case from Vining v. Malone

filing of claim of appeal and entry fee is necessary to vest this Court with jurisdiction in an appeal, and merely arguing that a trial court erred in awarding postjudgment attorney fees, which themselves are appealable as of right, in an appeal from the judgment is insufficient to invoke this Court's review of the attorney fees

Summary of this case from USL Improvement Ass'n v. Oceana Cnty. Drain Comm'r
Case details for

Pernell v. Allstate Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:PERNELL v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Jul 31, 2009

Citations

484 Mich. 852 (Mich. 2009)
768 N.W.2d 325

Citing Cases

Landry-Chan v. Chan

"The trial court need not comment on each item of evidence or argument raised by the parties, but its…

Lamiman v. Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co.

We agree with BONY and Chase Bank that the trial court's ruling on the postjudgment motion is beyond the…

153 Citing Cases