green
Positive treatment
Hot · 57 in 5y
Quoted verbatim 3×
35.8 score
“party opposing summary disposition cannot simply state that summary disposition is premature without identifying a disputed issue and supporting that issue with independent evidence.”
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Bostock v. City of Burlington
the law relating to the current viability of the continuing wrongs doctrine in the context of nuisance and trespass claims is hopelessly confused.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jennifer Janssen-Rogers v. Dept of Environment Great Lakes and Ene
later damages may result, but they give rise to no new cause of action, nor does the statute of limitations begin to run anew as each item of damage is incurred.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Tracy Flemming v. the Tobin Group LLC
party opposing summary disposition cannot simply state that summary disposition is premature without identifying a disputed issue and supporting that issue with independent evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Honorable Souren LLC v. County of Wayne
When the opposing party believes that summary disposition is premature, that party “must offer the required MCR 2.116(H) affidavits, with the probable testimony to support its contentions.” Id. at 292-293.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eesam Arabbo v. Estate of Robert West
Id. at 288. [Morse v Colitti, 317 Mich App 526, 550 ; 896 NW2d 15 (2016).] The limitations period runs from the time the claim accrues, and the claim accrues when the wrong was done regardless of when the damage results.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Glorycrest Carpenter Road Inc v. Adams Outdoor Advertising Limited
“The party opposing summary disposition must offer the required MCR 2.116(H) affidavits, with the probable testimony to support its contentions.” Id. at 292-293.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leonora Walchak v. Dan W Walchak
(2×)
“The party opposing summary disposition must offer the required MCR 2.116(H) affidavits, with the probable testimony to support its contentions.” Id. at 292-293.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Main Street Lofts Condominium Association v. Oscar Franco Parodi
“However, the mere fact that the discovery period remains open does not automatically mean that the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition was untimely or otherwise inappropriate.” Id. “[A] party opposing summary disposition cannot simply state that summary disposition is premature without identifying a disputed issue and supporting that issue with independent evidence.” Id. at 292-293.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
David Krieger v. Department of Environment Great Lakes and Energy
(3×)
Id. at 273.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moore Family Trust v. Michael Bingham
The Binghams noted Michigan’s abrogation of the continuing-wrongs doctrine, asserting that “there need only be one wrong and one injury to begin the running of the period of limitations.” R. 217-1, 4583 (quoting Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Tr. v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 769 N.W.2d 234, 247 (2009)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Margarita Aguirre v. Jason McPherson
Id. at 292. “[A] promise to offer factual support for a claim at trial” is insufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Mary T Mashni Revocable Living Trust v. Estate of Boulos N Mashni
Id. at 285-286.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Kathy Hahn v. Gary Vanduker
The party opposing summary disposition must offer the required MCR 2.116(H) affidavits, with the probable testimony to support its contentions.” Id. at 292-293.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Andy Saleh v. Safeco Insurance Company of Illinois
Thus, the question is whether plaintiffs have shown that earlier discovery of the EDR’s raw data stood “a fair chance of uncovering factual support for [plaintiffs’] position.” Id. at 292.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cordts v. Griffis
Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Tr. v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich. App. 264, 285 , 769 N.W.2d 234, 247 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Debra Burton v. Michigan Sugar Company
Therefore, the three-year limitations period for property damage claims arising out of nuisance or negligence begins running from the time that the claim accrues, which occurs when the wrong upon which the claim is based “was done regardless of the time when damage results.” Id. at 279.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gregory Cole v. Marathon Oil Corp.
The claim accrues “when both the last [wrongful] conduct and first, subsequent corresponding injury occurred.” Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Tr. v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich.App. 264 , 769 N.W.2d 234, 250 (2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones Family Trust v. Saginaw County Land Bank Authority
In determining whether a taking occurred, the form, intensity, and deliberateness of the governmental actions toward the injured party’s property must be examined. [Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 294-295 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).] Thus, an inverse-condemnation claim requires the proof of two elements: (1) “that the government’s actions were a substantial cause of the decline” of the property’s value and (2) that “the government abused its legitimate powers in affirmative actions…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones Family Trust v. Saginaw County Land Bank Authority
In determining whether a taking occurred, the form, intensity, and deliberateness of the governmental actions toward the injured party’s property must be examined. [Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 294-295 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).] Thus, an inverse-condemnation claim requires the proof of two elements: (1) “that the government’s actions were a substantial cause of the decline” of the property’s value and (2) that “the government abused its legitimate powers in affirmative actions…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Estate of Xavier Ray Joe v. Community Emergency Medical Service
Id. at 292-293.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
P E K Investments LLC v. Randy D Brandenburg
(3×)
Id. at 267-268.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thomas Welgosh v. City of Novi
In determining whether a taking occurred, the form, intensity, and deliberateness of the governmental actions toward the injured party’s property must be examined. [Quotation marks and citations omitted.] A de facto taking through inverse condemnation thereby requires proof of two elements: (1) “that the government’s actions were a substantial cause of the decline” of its property value, and (2) that “the government abused its legitimate powers in affirmative actions directly aimed at the plaintiff’s property.” Id. at 295 (emphasis added).
cited
Cited "see"
Thomas P Corr Revocable Trust Agreement v. Patrick F Corr
See id. at 280. -7- specifically addressed allegations of misconduct that had not yet occurred.
discussed
Cited "see"
Precise Mri of Michigan LLC v. State Auto Insurance Company
See id. -3- Reimbursement or coverage for expenses within personal protection insurance coverage under [MCL 500.3107] is not required for any of the following: * * * (b) A practice of chiropractic service, unless that service was included in the definition of practice of chiropractic under . . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Michael Long v. Liquor Control Commission
(2×)
See *74 Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust , 283 Mich.App. at 295 , 769 N.W.2d 234 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Michael James BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
v.
Michael James BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
137936.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Aug 6, 2009.
Published
Citer courts: Michigan Court of Appeals (1)
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 10, 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).