Opinion

Lamson v. Martin

  • 216 Mich. App. 452
  • 549 N.W.2d 878
Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Filed
May 3, 1996
Status
Published
Author
O'Connell
On the bench
Remand, Kelly, O'Connell, Teeple
Cited by
13 cases

The opinion

O’Connell, J.

(concurring.) I concur in the result only and write separately to address my concern regarding the majority’s innovative definition of “diligent inquiry.” The majority’s conscripted definition of diligent inquiiy was arbitrarily tom from an unrelated context and forced to do service in this context. If a definition of diligent inquiry is required, it should be gleaned from the intent of the Legislature when drafting this statute, not lifted part and parcel from an opinion discussing a completely different term of art. Trial judges in future cases should not be required to give this unique definition.

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.