future claim in Michigan

2017At most, there could have been a future violation, but our Supreme Court has held that the reporting “of a suspected planned or future violation of a law is not encompassed within the protections provided by MCL 15.362.” Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1, 8-9 ; 878 NW2d 784 (2016).

2017At most, there could have been a future violation, but our Supreme Court has held that the reporting “of a suspected planned or future violation of a law is not encompassed within the protections provided by MCL 15.362.” Pace v Edel-Harrelson, 499 Mich 1, 8-9 ; 878 NW2d 784 (2016).

2012GRIFFEY v PRESTIGE STAMPING, INC AND WILSON v ACACIA PARK CEMETERY ASSOCIATION ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR HOLDING Defendant contends that binding precedent precludes a retaliatory-discharge claim “premised on the employer’s anticipation of a future claim [for benefits],” citing Wilson, 162 Mich App at 638 , and Griffey v Prestige Stamping, Inc, 189 Mich App 665 ; 473 NW2d 790 (1991).

2012GRIFFEY v PRESTIGE STAMPING, INC AND WILSON v ACACIA PARK CEMETERY ASSOCIATION ARE CONSISTENT WITH OUR HOLDING Defendant contends that binding precedent precludes a retaliatory-discharge claim “premised on the employer’s anticipation of a future claim [for benefits],” citing Wilson, 162 Mich App at 638 , and Griffey v Prestige Stamping, Inc, 189 Mich App 665 ; 473 NW2d 790 (1991).

2025The contract therefore “fairly admits of but one interpretation.” Roumayah, 274 Mich App at 638 .

2023This would not, however, act to preclude a future claim related to the two children under Henry v Dow Chem Co, 473 Mich 63 ; 701 NW2d 684 (2005).

2023This would not, however, act to preclude a future claim related to the two children under Henry v Dow Chem Co, 473 Mich 63 ; 701 NW2d 684 (2005).

2019In In re AMAC, id. at 535 , reference was made at trial to a future hearing regarding the child’s best interests, and respondent’s counsel “indicated that certain witnesses would be called” at this hearing but not at the adjudicative trial.

2010R. 457 (1993). [70] As was recognized in Nat'l Int'l Brotherhood of Street Racers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 934, 937 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 44 (1989), "many popular and lawful recreational activities are destined for extinction" unless preinjury waivers are enforceable. [71] I concur with the following dissenting statement in Hojnowski, 375 N.J.Super. 568 at 598 , 868 A.2d 1087 (Fisher, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part): I believe a parent also has the right—with which the state must not interfere—to decide whether a child may play football or collect sea shells, learn to ri

2010R. 457 (1993). [70] As was recognized in Nat'l Int'l Brotherhood of Street Racers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 934, 937 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 44 (1989), "many popular and lawful recreational activities are destined for extinction" unless preinjury waivers are enforceable. [71] I concur with the following dissenting statement in Hojnowski, 375 N.J.Super. 568 at 598 , 868 A.2d 1087 (Fisher, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part): I believe a parent also has the right—with which the state must not interfere—to decide whether a child may play football or collect sea shells, learn to ri

2010R. 457 (1993). [70] As was recognized in Nat'l Int'l Brotherhood of Street Racers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 934, 937 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 44 (1989), "many popular and lawful recreational activities are destined for extinction" unless preinjury waivers are enforceable. [71] I concur with the following dissenting statement in Hojnowski, 375 N.J.Super. 568 at 598 , 868 A.2d 1087 (Fisher, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part): I believe a parent also has the right—with which the state must not interfere—to decide whether a child may play football or collect sea shells, learn to ri

2010R. 457 (1993). [70] As was recognized in Nat'l Int'l Brotherhood of Street Racers, Inc. v. Superior Court, 215 Cal.App.3d 934, 937 , 264 Cal.Rptr. 44 (1989), "many popular and lawful recreational activities are destined for extinction" unless preinjury waivers are enforceable. [71] I concur with the following dissenting statement in Hojnowski, 375 N.J.Super. 568 at 598 , 868 A.2d 1087 (Fisher, J. concurring in part and dissenting in part): I believe a parent also has the right—with which the state must not interfere—to decide whether a child may play football or collect sea shells, learn to ri

2008A parent signing a future release is thus more able to reasonably assess the possible consequences of waiving the right to sue." [ Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 373 , 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998), quoting Note, Scott v. Pacific West Mountain Resort: Erroneously invalidating parental releases of a minor's future claim, 68 Wash. L.R. 457, 473-474 (1993).] These considerations are persuasive and I would conclude that, whatever the merits of abrogating postinjury parental waivers, there is no reason to extend that abrogation to preinjury waivers.

2008A parent signing a future release is thus more able to reasonably assess the possible consequences of waiving the right to sue.” [Zivich v Mentor Soccer Club, Inc, 82 Ohio St 3d 367, 373; 696 NE2d 201 (1998), quoting Note, Scott v Facific West Mountain Resort: Erroneously invalidating parental releases of a minor’s future claim, 68 Wash L R 457, 473-474 (1993).] These considerations are persuasive and I would conclude that, whatever the merits of abrogating postinjury parental waivers, there is no reason to extend that abrogation to preinjury waivers.

1991Howlett, supra. Affirmed. 1 The Wilson panel stated: In Sventko, supra, 649-650, n 2 , Judge Allen, one of the two members of the panel comprising the majority, stated in a concurring opinion that if the plaintiffs termination was caused by the employer’s apprehension of a future claim arising from reinjury to the employee, then the plaintiff has no cause of action. [ 162 Mich App 645 .] We note that Judge Allen did not specifically refer to a future claim for workers’ compensation benefits, although that inference might be drawn from the language of his concurring opinion in which he stated:

1989Sventko v The Kroger Co, 69 Mich App 644 ; 245 NW2d 151 (1976); Hrab v Hayes-Albion Corp, 103 Mich App 90 ; 302 NW2d 606 (1981); Goins v Ford Motor Co, 131 Mich App 185, 192-194 ; 347 NW2d 184 (1983), lv den 424 Mich 879 (1986). * * * We hold that retaliatory discharge premised upon the employer's anticipation of a future claim does not state a legally cognizable cause of action. [Emphasis in original.] Affirmed.

1989Sventko v The Kroger Co, 69 Mich App 644 ; 245 NW2d 151 (1976); Hrab v Hayes-Albion Corp, 103 Mich App 90 ; 302 NW2d 606 (1981); Goins v Ford Motor Co, 131 Mich App 185, 192-194 ; 347 NW2d 184 (1983), lv den 424 Mich 879 (1986). * * * We hold that retaliatory discharge premised upon the employer's anticipation of a future claim does not state a legally cognizable cause of action. [Emphasis in original.] Affirmed.

1989Sventko v The Kroger Co, 69 Mich App 644 ; 245 NW2d 151 (1976); Hrab v Hayes-Albion Corp, 103 Mich App 90 ; 302 NW2d 606 (1981); Goins v Ford Motor Co, 131 Mich App 185, 192-194 ; 347 NW2d 184 (1983), lv den 424 Mich 879 (1986). * * * We hold that retaliatory discharge premised upon the employer's anticipation of a future claim does not state a legally cognizable cause of action. [Emphasis in original.] Affirmed.

1989Sventko v The Kroger Co, 69 Mich App 644 ; 245 NW2d 151 (1976); Hrab v Hayes-Albion Corp, 103 Mich App 90 ; 302 NW2d 606 (1981); Goins v Ford Motor Co, 131 Mich App 185, 192-194 ; 347 NW2d 184 (1983), lv den 424 Mich 879 (1986). * * * We hold that retaliatory discharge premised upon the employer's anticipation of a future claim does not state a legally cognizable cause of action. [Emphasis in original.] Affirmed.

1977We believe People v Lucas, supra, and People v Matheson, supra, provide sufficient guidance for the trial court’s determination in a future hearing..

1977We believe People v Lucas, supra, and People v Matheson, supra, provide sufficient guidance for the trial court’s determination in a future hearing..