JOYCELYN SANFORD V SEARS ROEBUCK AND CO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOYCELYN SANFORD, UNPUBLISHED February 24, 2004 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 243684 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 01-113612-NO SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Before: Cooper, P.J., and O'Connell and Fort Hood, JJ. COOPER, P.J. (dissenting). I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case in that I find plaintiff is entitled to the inference that the CAR contained information adverse to defendant. I believe that such an inference would be sufficient to defeat a MCR 2.116(C)(10) motion and allow the case to proceed to the jury. When deciding a motion for summary disposition, a court must consider the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions and other documentary evidence submitted in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.1 Accordingly, I would find that summary disposition was improperly granted to defendant in this case. /s/ Jessica R. Cooper 1 Ritchie-Gamester v City of Berkley, 461 Mich 73, 76; 597 NW2d 517 (1999). -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.