Case ID: mich_386/html/0221-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Black, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WILLIAMS v. FIEDLAR
    Opinion op the Court
    1. Appeal and Error.
    Judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed where leave to appeal that judgment was improvidently granted.
    Concurring Opinion
    Black, J.
    2. Appeal and Error.
    
      Leave to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals was improvidently granted hut this should not he understood as agreeing with the entire opinion of that Court im this ease.
    
    References for Points in Headnotes
    
       4 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 309 et seq.
    
    
       5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 934.
    Appeal from the Court of Appeals, Division 2, Quinn P. J., and T. M. Burns and Danhof, JJ., affirming Oakland, Clark J. Adams, J.
    Submitted September 16, 1971.
    (No. 43
    June Term 1971,
    Docket No. 52,772.)
    Decided November 9, 1971.
    Rehearing denied February 25, 1972.
    22 Mich App 179 affirmed.
    Complaint by Francis Thomas Williams against Myron W. Fiedlar and Larry Fiedlar to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeals. Affirmed. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      
      Robert L. Coopes, for plaintiff.
    
      Hartman, Beier, Howlett, McConnell & Googasian, for defendants.
   Per Curiam.

The issues upon which leave to appeal in this matter was heretofore granted having been thoroughly examined, briefs thereon considered, and oral arguments heard, it is the opinion of the Court that leave to appeal was improvidently granted.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. Costs to defendants.

T. M. Kavanagh, C. J., and Adams, T. E. Brennan, T. Gr. Kavanagh, Swainson, and Williams, JJ., concurred.

Black, J.

(concurring). When the appellant’s application for leave to review came to determination September 22, 1970 (384 Mich 753), I did not participate in the decision, it having been my precedently submitted view that the application should be held in abeyance pending decision of Taylor v. Walter, which last was decided October 6, 1970 (384 Mich 114) and ordered reheard with result shown in 385 Mich 599.

In view of the events listed above I concur in the Court’s determination that leave to review here was improvidently granted. However, I do not wish to be understood as agreeing with the entire opinion of Division 2 (22 Mich App 179). See Great Lakes Realty Corporation v. Peters (1953), 336 Mich 325, 328, 329. 
      
      
        Williams v. Medlar (1970), 22 Mich App 179.