Court Opinion

ID: 9658274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:54:02.019793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:53.290334
License: Public Domain

(dissenting). While the alleged facts and record with respect to defendants King, Bashara, Merrell, and Waldron herein are not entirely identical with those as to defendant McKeehan in Zimmerman v. Stahlin, 374 Mich 93, in which opinions of this Court were this day handed down, they are very similar and alike in that each of the said four defendants herein filed sworn affidavits supporting their motions for summary judgment, expressly denying that they participated, either directly or indirectly, in a plan to prepare or publish the document complained of, marked exhibit “A”, or caused it to be prepared or circulated. In this case, as in Zimmerman, that denial is left unrefuted. No plaintiff’s affidavit of merits, deposition or other proof is to be found in the record disputing it or giving rise to any question of fact in relation thereto. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in my opinion in Zimmerman, the summary judgments entered herein should be affirmed, with costs' to defendants.
O’Hara, J., concurred with Dethmers, J.
Kelly and Souris, JJ., did not sit.