Local News
Summary disposition motions in Gipp case ordered by court
By GARRETT NEESE, DMG Writer
POSTED: May 14, 2008
HOUGHTON — The attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant in the case of George Gipp’s exhumation will write motions for summary disposition.
Dr. Dawn Nulf, the county’s medical examiner, was the sole defendant not included in an earlier motion for summary disposition. In March, Judge Garfield Hood ruled in favor of the defendants, saying plaintiffs Ron and Karl Gipp did not have legal standing to sue them.
Attorney Torger Omdahl, who represents Ron and Karl Gipp, said he had included Nulf in his appeal based upon the ruling, which stated “Simply put, none of the defendants have standing to bring (any) of the claims which they have asserted against any of the moving defendants.”
“When I read that, I felt I had no choice but to file an appeal based on that,” he said.
After he filed his appeal, Omdahl said, there was a subsequent motion from attorney M. Sean Fosmire, who represents the Western U.P. District Health Department, stating that Omdahl could not legally file the appeal since it included Nulf’s case, which had yet to be dismissed.
Hood apologized for including Nulf in the order.
“Obviously, it was an error of mine to add that language ... because Dr. Nulf was not among the parties,” he said.
Omdahl said since the suit against Nulf would be dropped for the same reasons of standing as the others, once it is dismissed it should be able to join the rest in appeal.
“The plaintiffs either have standing to bring the case or they don’t,” he said.
The attorneys agreed to come back to Hood with a revised order.
Garrett Neese can be reached at gneese@mininggazette.com
Dr. Dawn Nulf, the county’s medical examiner, was the sole defendant not included in an earlier motion for summary disposition. In March, Judge Garfield Hood ruled in favor of the defendants, saying plaintiffs Ron and Karl Gipp did not have legal standing to sue them.
Attorney Torger Omdahl, who represents Ron and Karl Gipp, said he had included Nulf in his appeal based upon the ruling, which stated “Simply put, none of the defendants have standing to bring (any) of the claims which they have asserted against any of the moving defendants.”
“When I read that, I felt I had no choice but to file an appeal based on that,” he said.
After he filed his appeal, Omdahl said, there was a subsequent motion from attorney M. Sean Fosmire, who represents the Western U.P. District Health Department, stating that Omdahl could not legally file the appeal since it included Nulf’s case, which had yet to be dismissed.
Hood apologized for including Nulf in the order.
“Obviously, it was an error of mine to add that language ... because Dr. Nulf was not among the parties,” he said.
Omdahl said since the suit against Nulf would be dropped for the same reasons of standing as the others, once it is dismissed it should be able to join the rest in appeal.
“The plaintiffs either have standing to bring the case or they don’t,” he said.
The attorneys agreed to come back to Hood with a revised order.
Garrett Neese can be reached at gneese@mininggazette.com
Share:
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
