In 1988, the Michigan Supreme Court added the summary jury trial to its arsenal of settlement devices available to trial judges.' Unfortunately, the summary jury trial employed in Farleigh v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1251 failed to meet its goal, and no settlement was reached by the parties.6 Nevertheless, the Michigan Court of Appeals chose to enforce the summary jury verdict,7 thereby drawing into question not only the ability of the summary jury trial to meet the preliminary goal of promoting settlement, but also the larger goal of the accomplishment of justice
Thomas G. Glick,
Michigan's Binding Summary Jury Trial: Reward or Punishment - Farleigh v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1251,
1994 J. Disp. Resol.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/jdr/vol1994/iss1/16