From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stenzel v. Best Buy Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Apr 4, 2018
501 Mich. 1042 (Mich. 2018)

Opinion

SC: 156262 COA: 328804

04-04-2018

Paulette STENZEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BEST BUY COMPANY, INC., Defendant, and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.


Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 22, 2016 and June 27, 2017 judgments of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals special panel correctly held that there is a conflict between MCL 600.2957(2) and MCR 2.112(K) ; (2) whether, in any event, a party may amend a complaint upon receipt of a notice of nonparty fault without first filing a motion to amend; and (3) if so, whether the amendment relates back to the date the complaint was filed. The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

The Michigan Association for Justice, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., and the Negligence Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.


Summaries of

Stenzel v. Best Buy Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Apr 4, 2018
501 Mich. 1042 (Mich. 2018)
Case details for

Stenzel v. Best Buy Co.

Case Details

Full title:Paulette STENZEL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BEST BUY COMPANY, INC.…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan.

Date published: Apr 4, 2018

Citations

501 Mich. 1042 (Mich. 2018)
501 Mich. 1042

Citing Cases

Oakland Cnty. v. State

Absent a statute’s inherent conflict with a court rule, "there is no need to determine whether there was an…

Boyd v. Friskey

This Court also reviews de novo "questions regarding whether an action is barred by a period of limitations."…