green
Positive treatment
Trending · 84 recent citers
Quoted verbatim 8×
43.8 score
G Cite
cited 8× by 7 distinct cases, 2014–2022 · 4 courts ·
…it is well settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
at p. 912
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Iliescu v. Reg'l Transp. Comm'n
it is well settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Iliescu v. Reg'l Transp. Comm'n
(2×)
it is well settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Iliescu v. Reg'l Transp. Comm'n
it is well settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Iliescu v. Reg'l Transp. Comm'n
it is well settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Wings As Eagles Deliverance Ministry v. City of Detroit
it is well settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Attar 2018, LLC v. Taylor, City of
it is well settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
People of Michigan v. Tynathan Ameire Felder
it is well -6- settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
New Products Corporation v. Harbor Shores Bhbt Land Development
it is well settled that an injunction is an equitable remedy, not an independent cause of action.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Richardson v. Home Depot Inc.
See Goryoka v. Quicken Loan, Inc., 519 F. App'x 926, 929 (6th Cir. 2013); Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899, 912 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hermiz v. Miller
See Goryoka v. Quicken Loan, Inc., 519 F. App’x 926, 929 (6th Cir. 2013); Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899, 912 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). 2 Rooker v. Fid.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Miner v. Ogemaw County Road Commission
(2×)
Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899, 911 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (per curiam) (“Also, a prescriptive flowage easement may be lost by a 15-year period of continuous nonuse.” (citing Cook v. Grand River Hydroelectric Power Co., 346 N.W.2d 881, 884 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Agar Corporation, Inc. v. Electro Circuits International, LLC and Suresh Parikh
Ct. App. 2001); Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008); Schlotthauer v. Sanders, 545 N.Y.S.2d 197, 199 (N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Agar Corporation, Inc. v. Electro Circuits International, LLC and Suresh Parikh
Ct. App. 2001); Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008); Schlotthauer v. Sanders, 545 N.Y.S.2d 197, 199 (N.Y.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Peterson v. Heymes
Laws § 600.5805 (10); Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich.App. 644 , 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (2008) (civil conspiracy); Nelson v. Ho, 222 Mich.App. 74 , 564 N.W.2d 482, 487 (1997).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
AGAR Corporation, Inc. v. Electro Circuits International, LLC and Suresh Parikh
Conservation Dist., 29 Kan.App.2d 746 , 31 P.3d 970, 976 (2001); Mackey v. Compass Mktg., Inc., 391 Md. 117 , 892 A.2d 479, 485 (2006); Potter, Prescott, Jamieson & Nelson, P.A. v. Campbell, 708 A.2d 283, 286 (Me. 1998); Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich.App. 644 , 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (2008); Upah v. Ancona Bros.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Department of Environmental Quality v. Hernan F Gomez
Terlecki v Stewart, 278 Mich App 644, 655 ; 754 NW2d 899 391, 403 n 6; 591 NW2d 314 (1998), citing MCL 24.203(6) (now MCL 24.203(7)) and MCL 24.224.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mourad v. Marathon Petroleum Co.
Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich.App. 644, 654, 754 N.W.2d 899, 907 (Mich.Ct.App.2008).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
American Home Assurance Co. v. Weaver Aggregate Transport, Inc.
Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich.App. 644 , 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Future Now Enterprises, Inc. v. John Foster
(2×)
Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich.App. 644 , 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (2008).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Future Now Enterprises, Inc. v. Foster
Further, it is the wrongful act, not the agreement to commit a wrongful act, that commences the running of the limitations period.” Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich. App. 644, 653 , 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (2008).
discussed
Cited "see"
Levy Machining, LLC v. Hanover Twp., Mich.
See Jones v. Westminster, LLC, No. 334447, 2018 WL 2370634 , at *5–6 (Mich. Ct. App. May 24, 2018) (per curiam) (citing Restatement (Second) Judgments §§ 24, 26(1)(e) (1982)). “[A] plaintiff may only bring a second suit when the defendant continues in his or her tortious act, but not where the plaintiff experiences ‘continual harmful effects from an original, completed act.’” Id. at *6 (quoting Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899, 908 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008)); see also Frank v. Linkner, 894 N.W.2d 574 , 586 (Mich. 2017) (stating that a “claim accrues at the time the wrong upon whic…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jimisha Patel, Dharmeshkumar Patel, Rudra Patel, Rajvi Patel v. Lanam Foundry Corporation, Ravi Ballabhaneni, Krishnaveni Bodavula, Dehai Tao, P.C., Dehai Tao and Jane J. Wang
Mich. 2010); see also Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (internal citation omitted) (“[A]n allegation of conspiracy is ‘superfluous’ as far as determining the applicable statute of limitations. [. . .] It follows that the conspiracy claim takes on the limitations period for the underlying wrong that was the object of the conspiracy.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dunn v. Rockwell
(2×)
See also, Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich.App. 644 , 754 N.W.2d 899 (2008) (“the gravamen of the action is not the conspiracy but the wrongful act.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peter v. STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS, INC.
Law § 600.5827, which applies to both wrongful death and products liability actions. 1 Trentadue, 479 Mich, at 391-92 , 738 N.W.2d at 671-72; see also Terlecki v. Stewart, 278 Mich.App. 644 , 754 N.W.2d 899, 906 (2008) (applying Trentadue to claims of negligence, per se negligence, nuisance, trespass, and conspiracy).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ijoma E. RAYMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
v.
Ijoma E. RAYMOND, Defendant-Appellant.
136167.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Sep 9, 2008.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Michigan Court of Appeals (2)
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 19, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion for stay is DENIED.