¶1(dissenting). While I would likely agree with the majority conclusion that expert testimony is necessary in the circumstances of this case, I dissent from the majority decision, because I would not decide defendants’ application for leave to appeal separately from plaintiffs’ cross-application for leave to appeal and without full briefing and argument. Plaintiffs’ cross-application was granted at 473 Mich 856 (2005).
473 Mich. 1
702 N.W.2d 522
Woodard v. Custer
Decided July 12, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court · decided 2005-07-12
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 2018
4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 2005-07-12
View the full empirical analysis of this case →