People v. Ratliff, 781 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Ratliff, 781 N.W.2d 853 (Mich. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 10× by 8 distinct cases, 2017–2025 · …the basic requirements of due process in a civil case include notice of the proceeding and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2020–2022 · …where a court considers an issue sua sponte, due process can be satisfied by affording a party an opportunity for rehearing. ⚠ not in text
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2017–2020 · …the basic requirements of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard ⚠ not in text
209 citation events (209 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kenneth Rudisel v. Torchport Airpark LLC (michctapp, 2024-07-25)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Kenneth Rudisel v. Torchport Airpark LLC
Mich. Ct. App. · 2024 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
any error by a trial court in granting summary disposition sua sponte without affording a party an adequate opportunity to brief an issue and present it to the court may be harmless . . . , if the party is permitted to fully brief and present argument in a motion for reconsiderat…
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) C Claude Halstead v. Kelly Halstead
Mich. Ct. App. · 2022 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
where a court considers an issue sua sponte, due process can be satisfied by affording a party an opportunity for rehearing.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) John Trendell v. Mark Hackel
Mich. Ct. App. · 2019 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the basic requirements of due process in a civil case include notice of the proceeding and a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Earl Booth v. Department of Corrections
Mich. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
MCR 2.116(I)(1) provides that “[i]f the pleadings show that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or if the affidavits or other proofs show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the court shall render judgment without delay.” “Under this rule, a trial court has authority to grant summary disposition sua sponte, as long as one of the two conditions in the rule is satisfied.” Al-Maliki v LaGrant, 286 Mich App 483, 485 ; 781 NW2d 853, 855 (2009).
cited Cited "see" Claude Halstead v. Kelly Halstead
Mich. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See id.
cited Cited "see" Farrow Group Inc v. Detroit Land Bank Authority
Mich. Ct. App. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Al-Maliki v LaGrant, 286 Mich App 483, 485 , 781 NW2d 853 (2009).
discussed Cited "see" Tanya Sharp v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
Mich. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See Al-Maliki v LaGrant, 286 Mich App 483, 485-486 , 781 NW2d 853 (2009) (indicating that where a court considers an issue sua sponte, due process can be satisfied by affording a party an opportunity to be heard on rehearing).
cited Cited "see" in Re Calleen Ann Berndt Living Trust
Mich. Ct. App. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 486 .
cited Cited "see" Susan Reanel Ludwig v. Craig Cooper Ludwig
Mich. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Al-Maliki , 286 Mich. App. at 485 , 781 N.W.2d 853 .
cited Cited "see" Midwest Memorial Group LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc
Mich. Ct. App. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 489 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Lonnie Roberts RATLIFF, Defendant-Appellant.
139519.
Michigan Supreme Court.
May 26, 2010.
781 N.W.2d 853
Published
3 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: #28,803 of 633,719
Citer courts: Michigan Court of Appeals (3)

Order

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 9, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.