Nelson v. Schippel

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a plaintiff’s letter sent to a third-party claims administrator did not constitute sufficient service of process on the city
• holding that a plaintiff’s letter sent to a third-party claims administrator did not constitute sufficient service of process on the city
• concluding that a notice stating merely that the plaintiff received “ ‘significant injuries’ ” was “wholly inadequate” and could not be “deemed to have complied, substantially or otherwise, with” MCL 691.1404(1)
• holding that the defendant was not provided adequate notice under MCL 691.1404(1) when the plaintiff “alleged a whole host of injuries in her complaint” but only -5- stated in her pre-suit notice that she had received “ ‘significant injuries’ ”
• stressing that the plaintiff’s “description of her injury did not even name a body part that was injured”
• recognizing that MCR 2.105(H)(1) permits service of process on “an agency authorized by written appointment or by law to receive service of process,” and rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that service upon a third-party administrator was proper under a theory of apparent authority

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).