holding to determine rule in Michigan

2022Williamstown Twp v Hudson, 311 Mich App 276, 288 ; 874 NW2d 419 (2015) (“[W]here a court’s opinion does not invoke the proper court rule supporting its ruling, we may look to the substance of the holding to determine which rule governs.”).

2021Although defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), MCR 2.116(C)(8), and MCR 2.116(C)(10), the Wayne Circuit Court did not specify which rule it applied to defendant’s motion, as it related to the issue of res judicata. “[W]here a court’s opinion does not invoke the proper court rule supporting its ruling, we may look to the substance of the holding to determine which rule governs.” Williamstown Twp v Hudson, 311 Mich App 276, 288 ; 874 NW2d 419 (2015).

2019Williamston Twp, 311 Mich App at 288-289 (“[W]here a court’s opinion does not invoke the proper court rule supporting its ruling, we may look to the substance of the holding to determine which rule governs.”) Adair v Michigan, 497 Mich 89 , 99 n 18; 860 NW2d 93 (2014) (“[T]he appropriate label is one for involuntary dismissal because it is a case without a jury.”) Where, as here, the trial court noted the applicable court rule, instead of waiting for this Court to do so, there is no error.

2019Williamston Twp, 311 Mich App at 288-289 (“[W]here a court’s opinion does not invoke the proper court rule supporting its ruling, we may look to the substance of the holding to determine which rule governs.”) Adair v Michigan, 497 Mich 89 , 99 n 18; 860 NW2d 93 (2014) (“[T]he appropriate label is one for involuntary dismissal because it is a case without a jury.”) Where, as here, the trial court noted the applicable court rule, instead of waiting for this Court to do so, there is no error.

2015See Shields v Grandstaff, 161 Mich App 175, 179 ; 410 NW2d 308 (1987) (“Although the trial court’s ruling was somewhat . . . confusing, the substance of the holding was correct.”), affd sub nom Shields v Reddo, 432 Mich 761 ; 443 NW2d 145 (1989); see also Krass, 233 Mich App at 664-665 (reviewing the appeal under the standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) based on the substance of the court’s ruling even though motions were filed under (C)(8) and (10) and the trial court did not specify under which standard it ruled); Armoudlian, 116 Mich App at 671 (reviewing an order granting directed verdict as one

2015See Shields v Grandstaff, 161 Mich App 175, 179 ; 410 NW2d 308 (1987) (“Although the trial court’s ruling was somewhat . . . confusing, the substance of the holding was correct.”), affd sub nom Shields v Reddo, 432 Mich 761 ; 443 NW2d 145 (1989); see also Krass, 233 Mich App at 664-665 (reviewing the appeal under the standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) based on the substance of the court’s ruling even though motions were filed under (C)(8) and (10) and the trial court did not specify under which standard it ruled); Armoudlian, 116 Mich App at 671 (reviewing an order granting directed verdict as one

2015See Shields v Grandstaff, 161 Mich App 175, 179 ; 410 NW2d 308 (1987) (“Although the trial court’s ruling was somewhat . . . confusing, the substance of the holding was correct.”), affd sub nom Shields v Reddo, 432 Mich 761 ; 443 NW2d 145 (1989); see also Krass, 233 Mich App at 664-665 (reviewing the appeal under the standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) based on the substance of the court’s ruling even though motions were filed under (C)(8) and (10) and the trial court did not specify under which standard it ruled); Armoudlian, 116 Mich App at 671 (reviewing an order granting directed verdict as one

2015See Shields v Grandstaff, 161 Mich App 175, 179 ; 410 NW2d 308 (1987) (“Although the trial court’s ruling was somewhat . . . confusing, the substance of the holding was correct.”), affd sub nom Shields v Reddo, 432 Mich 761 ; 443 NW2d 145 (1989); see also Krass, 233 Mich App at 664-665 (reviewing the appeal under the standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10) based on the substance of the court’s ruling even though motions were filed under (C)(8) and (10) and the trial court did not specify under which standard it ruled); Armoudlian, 116 Mich App at 671 (reviewing an order granting directed verdict as one