9 Cited authorities

Pack v. Damon Corp.
434 F.3d 810 (6th Cir. 2006) Cited 481 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that expert report was "unsworn and thus is hearsay, which may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment"
Eyerman v. Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc.
967 F.2d 213 (6th Cir. 1992) Cited 80 times 1 Legal Analyses
Upholding express agreement which declared individual to be an independent contractor
Lockhart v. Napolitano
573 F.3d 251 (6th Cir. 2009) Cited 33 times
Reasoning that resort to legislative history was unnecessary where the undefined term could be given its “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning”
Rodriguez v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC
801 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2015) Cited 23 times
Holding allegations made in amended complaint must be "consistent with the [prior] pleading"
General Acquisition, Inc. v. Gencorp
766 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D. Ohio 1990) Cited 25 times
Holding on a motion to dismiss that de facto fiduciary relationship was sufficiently alleged where corporate financial adviser gave advice concerning prospective takeover bid
Pasieka v. Chaves
No. 304190 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2012) Cited 1 times
No. 304190 10-23-2012 TAVY PASIEKA and THOMAS PASIEKA, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. CESAR MARIO COLOYAN CHAVES, M.D., Defendant, and MEMORIAL HOSPITAL d/b/a MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE, Defendant-Appellee. PER CURIAM UNPUBLISHED Shiawassee Circuit Court LC No. 10-000115-NH Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and GLEICHER and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ. PER CURIAM. In this medical malpractice case we consider whether defendant Memorial Healthcare may be held vicariously liable for allegedly negligent treatment rendered to plaintiff
Powell v. Employment Sec. Comm
345 Mich. 455 (Mich. 1956) Cited 37 times
In Powell, supra, Justice Talbot Smith observed that the control test was used by Michigan courts as a "universal solvent" and as such was an inadequate standard because of the ambiguity of its meaning which rendered inconsistent results.
Van Pelt v. Paull
150 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967) Cited 19 times
In Van Pelt, an agency relationship was found between the defendants (franchisor and franchisee of a dance studio) and their subfranchisee where the defendants retained the right to exercise a significant amount of control over the subfranchisee's business.
Section 445.1712 - Record or information concerning purchase, lease, rental, or borrowing of books or other written materials, sound recordings, or video recordings; disclosure of customer identification prohibited; exception
Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1712 Cited 43 times 1 Legal Analyses
(1) Subject to subsection (2) and except as provided in section 3 or as otherwise provided by law, a person, or an employee or agent of the person, engaged in the business of selling at retail, renting, or lending books or other written materials, sound recordings, or video recordings shall not knowingly disclose to any person, other than the customer, a record or information that personally identifies the customer as having purchased, leased, rented, or borrowed those materials from the person engaged

Fox v. Time, Inc.

9 Cited authorities

Holding that expert report was "unsworn and thus is hearsay, which may not be considered on a motion for summary judgment"

Upholding express agreement which declared individual to be an independent contractor

Reasoning that resort to legislative history was unnecessary where the undefined term could be given its “ordinary, contemporary, common meaning”

Holding allegations made in amended complaint must be "consistent with the [prior] pleading"

Holding on a motion to dismiss that de facto fiduciary relationship was sufficiently alleged where corporate financial adviser gave advice concerning prospective takeover bid

In Powell, supra, Justice Talbot Smith observed that the control test was used by Michigan courts as a "universal solvent" and as such was an inadequate standard because of the ambiguity of its meaning which rendered inconsistent results.

In Van Pelt, an agency relationship was found between the defendants (franchisor and franchisee of a dance studio) and their subfranchisee where the defendants retained the right to exercise a significant amount of control over the subfranchisee's business.