1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.W.2d
  4. 732 N.W.2d
  5. 732 N.W.2d 578 (2007)
 

CHAPIN v. A & L PARTS, INC.

Docket No. 257917.

732 N.W.2d 578 (2007)

274 Mich. App. 122

Phillip R. CHAPIN and Bernie Mae Chapin, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. A & L PARTS, INC., Amchem Products, American Standard, Bondex International, Inc., Borg Warner Corporation, Carrier Corporation, Dap, Inc., Dana Corporation, Duro Dyne Corporation, Georgia Pacific Corporation, Goodrich Corporation, Hercules Chemical Company, Indianhead Industries, Inc., Kelsey Hayes Company, McCord Corporation, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Parker Hannifin Corporation, Pneumo Abex Corporation, Royal Industries, Inc., AII Acquisition Corporation, Carquest Auto Parts of Pinkney Michigan, Inc., George Fan Service, Inc. & All Equipment Company, Standco Industries, Inc., and Michigan Medical Counsel, Defendants, and Daimlerchrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and Honeywell, Inc., formerly known as Allied Signal Corporation, Defendants-Appellants.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Decided January 30, 2007, at 9:10 a.m.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Zamler, Mellen & Shiffman, P.C. (by Margaret H. Jensen and Alice A. Buffington) and Charfoos & Christensen, P.C. (by David R. Parker), Southfield, Detroit, for Phillip R. and Bernie M. Chapin.

Clark Hill PLC (by John E. Berg, Elizabeth Jollife, and Paul C. Smith), Detroit, for DaimlerChrysler Corporation.

Dykema Gossett PLLC (by Ted T. Amsen, Kathleen McCree Lewis, and Laura Sagolla), Detroit, for Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation.

Harvey Kruse, P.C. (by Dale R. Burmeister and Stephanie I. Marino), Troy, for Honeywell, Inc.

Crowell Moring (by Michael Goecke), Washington, D.C, for Coalition for Litigation Justice, Inc., and others.

Before: METER, P.J., and O'CONNELL and DAVIS, JJ.

DAVIS, J.

Defendants DaimlerChrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, and Honeywell, Inc., appeal by leave granted a stipulated order dismissing this case with prejudice.1 This appeal arises from the trial court's decision to admit plaintiffs Phillip R. and Bernie M. Chapin's expert's testimony. Defendants filed a motion in limine to exclude that testimony, and the trial court denied that motion. This Court...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases