McManus v. St. Joseph Hospital Corp.

2 Citing cases

  1. Grzesick v. Cepela

    237 Mich. App. 554 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 26 times
    In Grzesick v Cepela, 237 Mich App 554, 559-563; 603 NW2d 809 (1999), the trial court determined that the defendant had waived the affirmative defense of comparative negligence because, although the defense had been raised in the defendant’s answer to the plaintiffs complaint, as well as in the defendant’s answer to the plaintiff’s first amended complaint, the defendant failed to plead the defense when responding to the plaintiffs second amended complaint.

    People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich. 278, 284; 597 N.W.2d 1 (1999). This issue was raised but not decided in McManus v St Joseph Hosp Corp, 167 Mich. App. 432; 423 N.W.2d 217 (1987). MCR 2.111(F), on which defendant relies, states in pertinent part:

  2. Milnikel v. Mercy-Memorial

    183 Mich. App. 221 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that, in the absence of any indication of legislative intent to the contrary, a claim of loss of consortium is not precluded by the HCRA

    The grant or denial of a motion to amend is within the discretion of the trial court. McManus v St. Joseph Hosp Corp, 167 Mich. App. 432, 437; 423 N.W.2d 217 (1987). In denying plaintiff's motion to amend, the trial court indicated its decision was not based upon any finding of prejudice to defendant.