From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodbury v. Bruckner

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jul 5, 2001
629 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. 2001)

Opinion

No. 113709.

July 5, 2001.


3/October 2000. The cause having been briefed and orally argued, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded to that Court for reconsideration in light of Lugo v. Ameritech Corp, Inc, 464 Mich. 512 (2001). On reconsideration, the Court of Appeals is to determine, inter alia, (1) whether the covenant imposed by MCL 554.139 gave rise to a duty in tort, see Mobil Oil Corp v. Thorn 401 Mich. 306, 311-312 (1977); (2) if so, whether defendants can avoid tort liability arising from MCL 554.139 by relying on the open and obvious doctrine; and (3) whether defendants were entitled to summary disposition on their alternate theory that they were "landlords out of possession," see, e.g., Wallington v. Carry, 80 Mich. App. 248 (1977). The Court of Appeals is to allow the parties to file supplemental briefs. Leave to appeal was granted at 461 Mich. 992. Jurisdiciton is not retained. Court of Appeals No. 204411.

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ. We would remand to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Lugo, supra, but would state that the order is not intended to limit the scope of review on remand or to preclude argument on issues previously raised by the parties but not addressed by Lugo.


Summaries of

Woodbury v. Bruckner

Supreme Court of Michigan
Jul 5, 2001
629 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. 2001)
Case details for

Woodbury v. Bruckner

Case Details

Full title:WOODBURY v. BRUCKNER

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Jul 5, 2001

Citations

629 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. 2001)
629 N.W.2d 401

Citing Cases

Woodbury v. Bruckner

On reconsideration, the Court of Appeals is to determine, inter alia, (1) whether the covenant imposed by MCL…