Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 480 Mich. 1202 (Mich. 2007). · Go Syfert
Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 480 Mich. 1202 (Mich. 2007). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Trentadue
v.
Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Company
Michigan Supreme Court.
Sep 28, 2007.
480 Mich. 1202
Cavanagh, Grant, Kelly, Weaver.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

Lead Opinion

Reported at 479 Mich 378.

Cavanagh and Kelly, JJ. We would grant rehearing.

Dissent

Weaver, J.

(dissenting). I dissent from the majority of four’s decision to deny plaintiffs’ motion for a rehearing and repeat the concluding paragraph of my dissent from the majority’s opinion in this case, issued July 25, 2007:

Because I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that with the enactment of the Revised Judicature Act, the Legislature sought to[*1203] abrogate the discovery rule, I would affirm the Court of Appeals decision applying the common-law discovery rule and tolling the period of limitations where plaintiff could not have reasonably discovered the elements of a wrongful death cause of action within the limitations period. [Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich 378, 407 (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting).]

Clearly, the majority of four’s decision in this case reaches an absurd and unjust result, and lacks common sense.