Stevens v. McLouth Steel

30 Citing cases

  1. Lytle v. Malady

    458 Mich. 153 (Mich. 1998)   Cited 375 times
    Holding that employee handbook's disclaimer that it did not alter at-will nature of employee-employer relationship defeated plaintiff's due process claim

    Moreover, summary disposition is only appropriate where the claim or defense would be insupportable at trial because of an incurable deficiency. Stevens v McLouth Steel Products Corp, 433 Mich. 365, 370; 446 N.W.2d 95 (1989). In other words, courts should be liberal in finding that a genuine issue of material fact does exist.

  2. Radtke v. Everett

    442 Mich. 368 (Mich. 1993)   Cited 340 times
    Holding that a single instance of sexual harassment may have altered the plaintiff's working conditions although she did not allege that there had been tangible changes to her working environment

    A court reviewing such a motion, therefore, must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions, and any other evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion, and grant the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the opposing party. Stevens v McLouth Steel, 433 Mich. 365, 370; 446 N.W.2d 95 (1989). Accordingly, this Court examines and recites the facts in the instant case in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

  3. Ball v. Martin Marietta Magnesia Specialties, Inc.

    130 F.R.D. 77 (W.D. Mich. 1990)   Cited 4 times

    Neither argument is grounds for reconsideration.          In support of their legal challenge to the sufficiency of the " failure-to-rehire" claim against Sawhill, defendants cite only one case, Stevens v. McLouth Steel Products Corp., 433 Mich. 365, 446 N.W.2d 95 (1989). The stated issue in McLouth was the liability of a purchaser of assets for the discriminatory acts of the predecessor corporation.

  4. Bagoly v. Kroger Co.

    No. 191019 (Mich. Ct. App. Apr. 4, 1997)   Cited 1 times

    Rarely are the appellate courts of this state provided with an opportunity to explore and consider the parameters of the doctrine of corporate successor liability. To date, in Michigan, the doctrine has been examined only in the context of a common-law tort action, Chase v. Michigan Telephone Co, 121 Mich 631, 80 NW 717 (1899), Denolf v. Frank L Jursik Co, 54 Mich App. 584, 589, 221 NW2d 458 (1974), modified on other grounds 395 Mich 661, 238 NW2d 1 (1976), a products liability action, Turner v. Bituminous Casualty Co, 397 Mich 406, 244 NW2d 873 (1976), and an employment discrimination action, Stevens v. McLouth Steel Products Corp, 433 Mich 365, 446 NW2d 95 (1989). Accordingly, the action before us presents an opportunity to examine the doctrine in a different context.

  5. Hinds v. Grand Traverse County

    Case No. 1:08-cv-393 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 12, 2010)   Cited 1 times

    M.C.L. § 37.1607; M.S.A. § 3.550(607); Marsh v. Civil Service Dep't, 142 Mich. App. 557, 370 N.W.2d 613 (1985)." Stevens v. McLouth Steel Products Corp., 433 Mich. 365, 375, fn. 5, 446 N.W.2d 95 (Mich. 1989).

  6. Schmidt v. Wilbur

    783 F. Supp. 329 (E.D. Mich. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    Michigan courts have held that when one corporation sells its assets to another, the purchaser is not responsible for the debts and liabilities of the seller. Stevens v. McLouth Steel Prods. Corp., 433 Mich. 365, 370-71, 446 N.W.2d 95 (1989); Antiphon, Inc. v. LEP Transport, Inc., 183 Mich. App. 377, 382, 454 N.W.2d 222 (1990). However, the Michigan Supreme Court has carved out five exceptions to the general rule.

  7. Garg v. Macomb County Community Mental Health Services

    472 Mich. 263 (Mich. 2005)   Cited 268 times
    Holding that continuing violations doctrine does not apply in civil rights cases

    Thus, there has been no seismic shift, except for the makeup of this Court, that would warrant overruling Sumner and abolishing the continuing violations doctrine. See also Radtke v Everett, 442 Mich 368, 381-382; 501 NW2d 155 (1993) ("While this Court is not compelled to follow federal precedent or guidelines in interpreting Michigan law, this Court may, `as we have done in the past in discrimination cases, turn to federal precedent for guidance in reaching our decision.' Sumner v Goodyear Tire Rubber Co, 427 Mich 505, 525; 398 NW2d 368 (1986)."); Stevens v McLouth Steel Products Corp, 433 Mich 365, 375; 446 NW2d 95 (1989) ("This Court has frequently drawn from federal court precedent in interpreting other aspects of the Civil Rights Act. See, e.g., Sumner v Goodyear Tire Rubber Co, 427 Mich 505, 525; 398 NW2d 368 (1986).

  8. Craig v. Oakwood Hosp

    471 Mich. 67 (Mich. 2004)   Cited 391 times
    Holding that "a party may waive any claim of error by failing to call this gatekeeping obligation to the court's attention"

    Its application is therefore subject to review de novo.Stevens v McLouth Steel Products Corp, 433 Mich 365, 376; 446 NW2d 95 (1989), quoting Musikiwamba v ESSI, Inc, 760 F2d 740, 750 (CA 7, 1985).Stachnik v Winkel, 394 Mich 375, 383; 230 NW2d 529 (1975).

  9. Lytle v. Malady

    456 Mich. 1 (Mich. 1997)   Cited 17 times

    The affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other material supporting and opposing the motion must be considered, so that it may be decided whether "'it is impossible for the claim or defense to be supported at trial because of some deficiency which cannot be overcome.'" Stevens v. McLouth Steel Products Corp, 433 Mich. 365, 370; 446 N.W.2d 95 (1989), quoting Rizzo v. Kretschmer, 389 Mich. 363, 372; 207 N.W.2d 316 (1973). If the court concludes that it is impossible for the record to be developed any further, summary disposition is appropriate.

  10. Weymers v. Khera

    454 Mich. 639 (Mich. 1997)   Cited 289 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that factors like whether the plaintiff is seeking "to add a new claim or a new theory of recovery on the basis of the same set of facts, after discovery is closed, just before trial," support a finding of prejudice

    In other words, the "court must be satisfied . . . that `it is impossible for the claim or defense to be supported at trial because of some deficiency which cannot be overcome.'" Stevens v. McLouth Steel Products Corp, 433 Mich. 365, 370; 446 N.W.2d 95 (1989), quoting Rizzo v. Kretschmer, 389 Mich. 363, 372; 207 N.W.2d 316 (1973). In making that determination, the court considers affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence filed by the parties in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.