In re Church
Opinion
717 N.W.2d 855 (2006) 475 Mich. 899
In re Briana CHURCH, Keeley Church, and Michael Church, Minors.
Department of Human Services, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Angela Church, Respondent-Appellant, and
Donald Church, Respondent.
Docket No. 131190, COA No. 263541.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
June 30, 2006.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 11, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(holding that the risk of ingesting hair oil was “obvious” where its label listed 11 “ingredients . . . which would be unfamiliar to the average product user”)
-
(stating that a defendant’s duty to warn in a products-liability action is governed by Chapter 29 of the Revised Judicature Act)
-
(stating that when reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) the trial court must consider the evidence submitted by the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party)
-
(observing that tort reform legislation enacted in 1995 “displaced the common law” and now governs a manufacturer’s or seller’s duty to warn and does not require a manufacturer to warn of “possible” injuries that might occur or of “specific” injuries)
-
(“The rule must and should be that a court applies the statute as written.”)
-
(Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2948(2) does not require that a warning address possible injuries that might occur where the facts of record require the conclusion that the risk of serious harm from the asserted condition is open and obvious.)
Cited by 76 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.