Categories: Michigan Supreme Court Opinions

BROOKS v. SCIBERRAS, 464 Mich. 853 (2001)

627 N.W.2d 601

SARAH L. BROOKS and ARKLES BROOKS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JESSICA SCIBERRAS and KATHERINE GARBARINO, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 117453.Supreme Court of Michigan.
May 15, 2001.

COA: 211227, Wayne CC: 96-621541-NI

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the July 28, 2000 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we modify the Court of Appeals judgment in the following respect: we REVERSE the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court order denying defendants’ motion for sanctions, because the trial court decision did not constitute a clear abuse of its discretion. Spalding v Spalding, 355 Mich. 382 (1959). In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., would reverse the Court of Appeals affirmance of the trial court order striking plaintiffs’ expert witness and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for it to remand, while retaining jurisdiction, to the trial court for articulation of its reasons for striking the witness.

jdjungle