Rowry v. Univ of Michigan

32 Citing cases

  1. City of Ann Arbor v. American Federation of State Employees Local 369

    284 Mich. App. 126 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 72 times
    Stating that "a reviewing court cannot engage in contract interpretation, which is an issue for the arbitrator to determine."

             Subsequently, however, our Supreme Court refused to apply this Court's decision in Walkerville, holding that PERA's six-month limitations period could not be applied by analogy and that actions to enforce arbitration awards are instead governed by the six-year limitations period for breach of contract actions and, where specific performance or other equitable relief is sought, are also subject to the equitable doctrine of laches. Rowry v. Univ. of Michigan, 441 Mich. 1, 9-11, 490 N.W.2d 305 (1992). Stated differently, the Court explained that " a plaintiff ordinarily has six years to seek enforcement of an arbitration award[,]" although " in certain cases this time period may be substantially diminished if a plaintiff's arbitration award grants equitable relief and a delay in its enforcement is shown to prejudice the defendant in a way that evokes laches to bar the plaintiff's claim."

  2. Luna Pier Truck Depot, LLC v. Prime Fin., Inc.

    No. 353859 (Mich. Ct. App. Jun. 24, 2021)   Cited 1 times

    Appellants are also correct that a party may waive the affirmative defense of laches by failing to raise it timely. See Rowry v Univ of Mich, 441 Mich. 1, 12; 490 N.W.2d 305 (1992). Here, appellees raised their laches defense in response to appellants' motion to lift the automatic stay and reinstate the case.

  3. Zelasko v. Zelasko

    No. 324514 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 2015)

    "It is the agreement that dictates the authority of the arbitrators and the disputes to be resolved through arbitration." Rowry v Univ of Mich, 441 Mich 1, 10; 490 NW2d 305 (1992). Accordingly, the DRAA requires that the parties "first sign an agreement for binding arbitration delineating the powers and duties of the arbitrator."

  4. Wiand v. Wiand

    No. 301621 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2012)   Cited 1 times

    The equitable doctrine of laches requires a plaintiff to exercise due diligence to ensure the timely prosecution of the claim to avoid unduly prejudicing the defendant. Rowry v University of Michigan, 441 Mich 1, 11; 490 NW2d 305 (1992). In certain cases, laches can operate to cut short a statutory limitation period where equitable relief is sought.

  5. Miller v. Miller

    474 Mich. 27 (Mich. 2005)   Cited 48 times
    In Miller, which has never been overruled, this Court held that "a private tax payer, suffering under no special grievance, is not even a proper party to a bill filed to restrain threatened misconduct...."

    This Court has consistently held that arbitration is a matter of contract. "It is the agreement that dictates the authority of the arbitrators[.]" Rowry v. Univ of Michigan, 441 Mich 1, 10; 490 NW2d 305 (1992). In this case, the Court of Appeals decision infringes on the parties' recognized freedom to contract for binding arbitration.

  6. Richardson v. Wright

    No. 361839 (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 25, 2024)

    Specific performance is an equitable remedy, Rowry v Univ of Mich, 441 Mich. 1, 10; 490 N.W.2d 305 (1992), and "contracts involving the sale of land are generally subject to specific performance[,]" In re Egbert R Smith Trust, 480 Mich. 19, 26; 745 N.W.2d 754 (2008). However, specific performance is not proper

  7. Davis v. Cnty. of Wayne

    No. 364133 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2023)

    The doctrine of laches may bar a claim even where the action is brought within the applicable limitations period. Rowry v Univ of Mich, 441 Mich. 1, 11; 490 N.W.2d 305 (1992).

  8. Barnett v. Barnett

    No. 354668 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2022)

    This Court has consistently held that arbitration is a matter of contract. "It is the agreement that dictates the authority of the arbitrators[.]" Rowry v Univ of Michigan, 441 Mich. 1, 10; 490 N.W.2d 305 (1992). In this case, the Court of Appeals decision infringes on the parties' recognized freedom to contract for binding arbitration.

  9. Quinlan v. Atl. Tool & Die Co.

    No. 355690 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2021)

    In other words, its purpose is to prevent 'litigious harassment' involving the same questions as those in pending litigation." Rowry v Univ of Michigan, 441 Mich. 1, 20-21; 490 N.W.2d 305 (1992) (Riley, J., concurring) (citations omitted)

  10. Vascular Health Clinics PLLC v. MidMichigan Health

    No. 354266 (Mich. Ct. App. Sep. 16, 2021)

    In other words, its purpose is to prevent 'litigious harassment' involving the same questions as those in pending litigation." Id., quoting Rowry v Univ of Mich, 441 Mich. 1, 20-21; 490 N.W.2d 305 (1992) (Riley, J., concurring) (first emphasis added). Moreover, in Valeo Switches & Detection Sys, Inc v Emcom, Inc, 272 Mich.App. 309, 313; 725 N.W.2d 364 (2006), this Court explained that MCR 2.116(C)(6) "is a codification of the former plea of abatement by prior action," the purpose of which was "to protect parties from the harassment of new suits."