Ford standard in Michigan

2018In Michigan, the elements of the common-law tort of intentional mis- representation are: (1) the defendant made a material misrepresentation; (2) it was false; (3) when he made the representation, he knew that it was false; (4) he made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff should act on it; (5) the plaintiff did in fact act in reliance on it; and (6) the plaintiff thereby suffered injury or damage. [Appalachian Railcar Servs, Inc v Boatright Enterprises, Inc, 602 F Supp 2d 829, 880 (WD Mich, 2008), citing Hi-Way Motor Co v Int’l Harvester Co, 398 Mich 330, 336 ; 247 NW2d 813

2018In Michigan, the elements of the common-law tort of intentional mis- representation are: (1) the defendant made a material misrepresentation; (2) it was false; (3) when he made the representation, he knew that it was false; (4) he made the representation with the intention that the plaintiff should act on it; (5) the plaintiff did in fact act in reliance on it; and (6) the plaintiff thereby suffered injury or damage. [Appalachian Railcar Servs, Inc v Boatright Enterprises, Inc, 602 F Supp 2d 829, 880 (WD Mich, 2008), citing Hi-Way Motor Co v Int’l Harvester Co, 398 Mich 330, 336 ; 247 NW2d 813

2023“A party seeking the disqualification of counsel bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how and as to what issues in the case the likelihood of prejudice will result.” Killingbeck v Killingbeck, 269 Mich App 132, 148 ; 711 NW2d 759 (2005) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

2023“A party seeking the disqualification of counsel bears the burden of demonstrating specifically how and as to what issues in the case the likelihood of prejudice will result.” Killingbeck v Killingbeck, 269 Mich App 132, 148 ; 711 NW2d 759 (2005) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

2008We do not retain jurisdiction. 1 Garcia v Ford Motor Co, unpublished memorandum opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, issued July 7, 2003 (Docket No. 4:02CV001319 RWS). 2 Torres v Ford Motor Co, Civil Court in the District of Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico, Case No. 648/04-C (November 16, 2004), aff d on appeal in the Supreme Court, Guanajuato, Mexico (January 31, 2005). 3 Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389 Mich 382, 396 ; 207 NW2d 393 (1973). 4 Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 924, 924-925 (2005). 5 Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 475 Mich 598 ; 719 NW

2008We do not retain jurisdiction. 1 Garcia v Ford Motor Co, unpublished memorandum opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, issued July 7, 2003 (Docket No. 4:02CV001319 RWS). 2 Torres v Ford Motor Co, Civil Court in the District of Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico, Case No. 648/04-C (November 16, 2004), aff d on appeal in the Supreme Court, Guanajuato, Mexico (January 31, 2005). 3 Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389 Mich 382, 396 ; 207 NW2d 393 (1973). 4 Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 924, 924-925 (2005). 5 Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 475 Mich 598 ; 719 NW

2008We do not retain jurisdiction. 1 Garcia v Ford Motor Co, unpublished memorandum opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, issued July 7, 2003 (Docket No. 4:02CV001319 RWS). 2 Torres v Ford Motor Co, Civil Court in the District of Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico, Case No. 648/04-C (November 16, 2004), aff d on appeal in the Supreme Court, Guanajuato, Mexico (January 31, 2005). 3 Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389 Mich 382, 396 ; 207 NW2d 393 (1973). 4 Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 924, 924-925 (2005). 5 Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 475 Mich 598 ; 719 NW

2008We do not retain jurisdiction. 1 Garcia v Ford Motor Co, unpublished memorandum opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, issued July 7, 2003 (Docket No. 4:02CV001319 RWS). 2 Torres v Ford Motor Co, Civil Court in the District of Leon, Guanajuato, Mexico, Case No. 648/04-C (November 16, 2004), aff d on appeal in the Supreme Court, Guanajuato, Mexico (January 31, 2005). 3 Cray v Gen Motors Corp, 389 Mich 382, 396 ; 207 NW2d 393 (1973). 4 Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 472 Mich 924, 924-925 (2005). 5 Radeljak v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 475 Mich 598 ; 719 NW

2006This Court granted leave to consider the judgments of the Court of Appeals. 474 Mich. 886 , 705 N.W.2d 28 (2005).

2006This Court granted leave to consider the judgments of the Court of Appeals. 474 Mich 886 (2005).

2006This Court granted leave to consider the judgments of the Court of Appeals. 474 Mich. 886 , 705 N.W.2d 28 (2005).

1988In my authored opinion in Li v Wong, 162 Mich App 767, 773 ; 413 NW2d 493 (1987), I indicated that the Veeneman-Garcia standard was correct.

1988In my authored opinion in Li v Wong, 162 Mich App 767, 773 ; 413 NW2d 493 (1987), I indicated that the Veeneman-Garcia standard was correct.

1988Veeneman, supra at 699 .

1988Veeneman, supra at 699 .

1988It has been brought to my attention that the position I take in the case at bar, in preferring the Veeneman-Garcia standard over the Ford standard, appears to be inconsistent with my position in the per curiam opinion in Eyde Brothers Development Co v Roscommon Co Bd of Rd Comm’is, 161 Mich App 654 ; 411 NW2d 814 (1987).

1988It has been brought to my attention that the position I take in the case at bar, in preferring the Veeneman-Garcia standard over the Ford standard, appears to be inconsistent with my position in the per curiam opinion in Eyde Brothers Development Co v Roscommon Co Bd of Rd Comm’is, 161 Mich App 654 ; 411 NW2d 814 (1987).

1986As said in In re Churchill Estate, 230 Mich 148 , 155; 203 NW 118 (1925), "In the construction of wills the cardinal canon, the guiding polar star, is that the intent of the testator must govern . . . .” See also Hay v Hay, 317 Mich 370, 397 ; 26 NW2d 908 (1947); Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 598 ; 2 NW2d 509 (1942).

1986As said in In re Churchill Estate, 230 Mich 148 , 155; 203 NW 118 (1925), "In the construction of wills the cardinal canon, the guiding polar star, is that the intent of the testator must govern . . . .” See also Hay v Hay, 317 Mich 370, 397 ; 26 NW2d 908 (1947); Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 598 ; 2 NW2d 509 (1942).

1986As said in In re Churchill Estate, 230 Mich 148 , 155; 203 NW 118 (1925), "In the construction of wills the cardinal canon, the guiding polar star, is that the intent of the testator must govern . . . .” See also Hay v Hay, 317 Mich 370, 397 ; 26 NW2d 908 (1947); Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 598 ; 2 NW2d 509 (1942).

1986As said in In re Churchill Estate, 230 Mich 148 , 155; 203 NW 118 (1925), "In the construction of wills the cardinal canon, the guiding polar star, is that the intent of the testator must govern . . . .” See also Hay v Hay, 317 Mich 370, 397 ; 26 NW2d 908 (1947); Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 598 ; 2 NW2d 509 (1942).

1986As said in In re Churchill Estate, 230 Mich 148 , 155; 203 NW 118 (1925), "In the construction of wills the cardinal canon, the guiding polar star, is that the intent of the testator must govern . . . .” See also Hay v Hay, 317 Mich 370, 397 ; 26 NW2d 908 (1947); Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 598 ; 2 NW2d 509 (1942).

1986As said in In re Churchill Estate, 230 Mich 148 , 155; 203 NW 118 (1925), "In the construction of wills the cardinal canon, the guiding polar star, is that the intent of the testator must govern . . . .” See also Hay v Hay, 317 Mich 370, 397 ; 26 NW2d 908 (1947); Dodge v Detroit Trust Co, 300 Mich 575, 598 ; 2 NW2d 509 (1942).