Opinion

Netter v. Bowman

  • 272 Mich. App. 289
  • 725 N.W.2d 353
Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Filed
Sep 19, 2006
Status
Published
Author
Wilder
On the bench
Hoekstra, Whitbeck, Wilder
Cited by
10 cases

holding that “the current meaning of ‘objectively manifested’ .. . requires that a plaintiffs injury must be capable of objective verification”

How later courts described this case

  • holding that “the current meaning of ‘objectively manifested’ .. . requires that a plaintiffs injury must be capable of objective verification”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WILDER, J.,

(concurring). I join with the majority in determining that the trial court erred by concluding that Netter’s injuries impaired her general ability to lead a normal life, and, therefore, I agree that summary disposition was correctly granted in favor of Bowman. Accordingly, I would not address the question whether Netter suffered a serious impairment of body function.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.