Opinion · Michigan Supreme Court
Hill v. Husky Briquetting, Inc
393 Mich. 136
- Type
- Opinion
- Court
- Michigan Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- Michigan
- Date
- 1974-11-21
- Topic
- bankruptcy
How later courts describe this case
- New York labeling statute established only the minimum standard
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed Hill v. Husky Briquetting, Inc. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 12 opinions
HILL
v.
HUSKY BRIQUETTING, INC
Docket No. 56,109.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
November 21, 1974.Kozlow, Jasmer & Woll, P.C., for plaintiffs. Harvey, Kruse & Westen, P.C., for defendant.
ORDER
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered and the same is hereby granted. On its own motion, pursuant to GCR 1963, 865.1(7), this Court peremptorily affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In Marietta v Cliffs Ridge, Inc, 385 Mich 364, 369-370 (1971), we said:
"The customary usage and practice of the industry is relevant evidence to be used in determining whether or not this standard has been met. Such usage cannot, however, be determinative of the standard."
To the extent that Cheli v Cudahy Brothers Co, 267 Mich 690 (1934), and Barton v Myers, 1 Mich App 460 (1965), declare a contrary rule, they no longer will be followed.
*137 NOTE: Where possible, a syllabus (headnote), such as this, will be released at the time the opinion is released. This syllabus is not a part of the opinion of the Court but has been written by the Supreme Court Reporter as a summary of the case for the convenience of readers. See United States v Detroit Lumber Company, 200 US 321, 337; 26 S Ct 282; 50 L Ed 499 (1906).