ADVANCED FRICTION MATERIALS CO V STERLING DETROIT CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ADVANCED FRICTION MATERIALS CO.,
UNPUBLISHED
December 13,2002
Plaintiff/Counter-DefendantAppellee/Cross-Appellant,
v
No. 216543
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 95-510130-CK
STERLING-DETROIT CO.,
Defendant/Counter-PlaintiffAppellant/Cross-Appellee.
ON REMAND
Before: Neff, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen, JJ.
JANSEN, J. (concurring).
I concur in the result, but write separately because I believe that the case should be
analyzed differently. As set forth in Kelly v Builders Square, 465 Mich 29, 41; 632 NW2d 912
(2001), “[a] court may grant a new trial following a jury verdict only for one of the reasons
stated in MCR 2.611(A)(1).” In this case, MCR 2.611(A)(1)(e) [“A verdict or decision . . .
contrary to law”], not MCR 2.612(C)(1)(f), provides the proper legal basis for analyzing whether
a new trial can be granted on the basis that the verdict was inconsistent or incongruous. That is
so because an inconsistent or incongruous verdict or decision is properly considered to be
“contrary to law.” Thus, there is no need to go through MCR 2.611(A)(1)(h) to reach MCR
2.612(C)(1)(f) to resolve this case. Here, the trial court erred in granting a new trial because the
jury verdict was not inconsistent as a matter of law, and thus not “contrary to law” under MCR
2.611(A)(1)(e).
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-1-
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.
