Michigan Court of Appeals· 10/19/2001

Karbel v. Comerica Bank

Citations

635 N.W.2d 69
247 Mich. App. 90

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that “proffered evidence constitut[ing] only a mere possibility . . . is insufficient to raise a material question of fact and overcome [a] summary disposition motion”
stating that “a party opposing a motion for summary disposition must present more than conjecture and speculation to establish that genuine issue of material fact exists.”
“A conjecture is simply an explanation consistent with known facts or conditions, but not deducible from them as a reasonable inference.”
“A conjecture is simply an explanation consistent with known facts or conditions, but not deducible from them as a reasonable inference.”
“[P]arties opposing a motion for summary disposition must present more than conjecture and speculation to meet their burden of providing evidentiary proof establishing a genuine issue of material fact.”
“[P]arties opposing a motion for summary disposition must present more than conjecture and speculation to meet their burden of providing evidentiary proof establishing a genuine issue of material fact.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Bandstra, Griffin, Collins

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.