From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Donoho v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Feb 3, 2006
708 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2006)

Opinion

No. 127537.

February 3, 2006.


Leave to Appeal Denied.

SC: 127537, COA: 256525.

The motion for leave to file brief amicus curiae is denied as moot.


I concur in the majority's decision to deny leave to appeal on the facts of this case. Nonetheless, I remain interested in the problem presented. The question is not whether the prevailing attorney should receive a fee, but from whom. Defendant raises a jurisprudentially significant issue involving the longstanding improper interpretation of the term "prorate." MCL 418.315(1) apparently directs that attorney fees be prorated rather than added to the medical benefits as discussed in Commissioner Richard Leslie's concurrence in Stankovic v. Kasle Steel Corporation, 2000 Mich ACO 124.


Summaries of

Donoho v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Feb 3, 2006
708 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2006)
Case details for

Donoho v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARY A. DONOHO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Feb 3, 2006

Citations

708 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. 2006)
474 Mich. 1057

Citing Cases

Vicks v. DaimlerChrysler Corporation

SC: 130291, COA: 263789. CORRIGAN, J. I would deny leave to appeal but I continue to adhere to my concurring…

Petersen v. Magna Corporation No 2

CORRIGAN, J. (concurring). I concur in the order of remand, but I continue to adhere to the views that I…