Murdock v. Higgins

Supreme Court of Michigan · Decided 1997-03-04

Cited by 101 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

Boyle, J. (concurring). I agree with the lead opinion that on the basis of these facts defendant Higgins did not owe a duty to this plaintiff as a matter of law. The record reflects that defendant Higgins had no contact with minors in his role as coordinator of volunteer services at the Missaukee Dss. Neither did defendant Higgins know, nor could it be established that he knew, th…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.