Cowan v. Rockford Township

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, “because the trial court considered documentary evidence beyond the pleadings, we construe the motion as having been granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10)”
• noting that review is proper under MCR 2.116(C)(10) where the trial court considered evidence outside the pleadings
• noting that “[i]ssues of statutory construction involve questions of law . . .”
• noting that when a party moves for summary disposition on multiple grounds, but the trial court does not specify on what grounds it granted the motion, this Court will treat the motion as having been granted under MCR 2.116(C)(10
• noting that when a party moves for summary disposition on multiple grounds, but the trial court does not specify on what grounds it granted the motion, this Court will treat the motion as having been granted under MCR 2.116(C)(10
• “[A] cause of action for retaliatory discharge cannot be based on the anticipated exercise of a right afforded under the Act.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).