JOSEPH W STROUP V SANDY K DERBY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JOSEPH W. STROUP and SALLY BATEMAN
STROUP,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff,
v
No. 195937
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. A 95-2820 PD
SANDY K. DERBY,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
JENNIFER STROUP,
Defendant,
and
WALSH & WALSH, PC and RICHARD C.
WALSH,
Appellants.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Kelly and Whitbeck, JJ.
KELLY, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in the majority opinion to vacate the award of sanctions, but dissent as to the decision
to remand. No remand was requested, no cross-appeal was filed, no creative extension of our powers
of review is necessary.
The analogy drawn by the per curiam footnote 4 seems to limp as the pedagogues say. A
remand for a new trial in a criminal case is hortatory. We remand for further proceedings left mainly to
the prosecutor. Anything appropriate can happen. We do not ordinarily scratch out an
-1
elaborate scenario for the edification of the lower court where counsel for the parties have not identified
such post-appellate proceedings as authorized and appropriate.
I would reverse.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
