# Lamson v. Martin

> Michigan Court of Appeals · May 3, 1996 · 216 Mich. App. 452

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524117

## Case

- **Full name:** Lamson v. Martin (After Remand)
- **Court:** Michigan Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** May 3, 1996
- **Citations:** 216 Mich. App. 452; 549 N.W.2d 878
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by O'Connell
- **Judges:** Remand, Kelly, O'Connell, Teeple
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524117

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9524117. Public record. Not legal advice.