green
Positive treatment
32.5 score
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Renee Pinsky v. Kroger Co of Michigan
We therefore disagree with driveway during daylight hours, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment . . . .”); Schooley v Consol Roadhouse of Taylor, LLC, 488 Mich App 981 , 982 (2010) (MARKMAN, J., dissenting) (“I continue to believe that an ordinary toilet paper dispenser does not constitute a ‘dangerous condition’ causing ‘an unreasonable risk of harm’ on a business premises.”). 23 See, e.g., Lymon v Freedland, 501 Mich 933 , 933 (2017) (MARKMAN, C.J., dissenting) (explaining that he would have granted leave to appeal to “provide greater clarity concerning the circumsta…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Renee Pinsky v. Kroger Co of Michigan
We therefore disagree with driveway during daylight hours, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment . . . .”); Schooley v Consol Roadhouse of Taylor, LLC, 488 Mich App 981 , 982 (2010) (MARKMAN, J., dissenting) (“I continue to believe that an ordinary toilet paper dispenser does not constitute a ‘dangerous condition’ causing ‘an unreasonable risk of harm’ on a business premises.”). 23 See, e.g., Lymon v Freedland, 501 Mich 933 , 933 (2017) (MARKMAN, C.J., dissenting) (explaining that he would have granted leave to appeal to “provide greater clarity concerning the circumsta…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ahlam Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil Inc
We therefore disagree with driveway during daylight hours, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment . . . .”); Schooley v Consol Roadhouse of Taylor, LLC, 488 Mich App 981 , 982 (2010) (MARKMAN, J., dissenting) (“I continue to believe that an ordinary toilet paper dispenser does not constitute a ‘dangerous condition’ causing ‘an unreasonable risk of harm’ on a business premises.”). 23 See, e.g., Lymon v Freedland, 501 Mich 933 , 933 (2017) (MARKMAN, C.J., dissenting) (explaining that he would have granted leave to appeal to “provide greater clarity concerning the circumsta…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ahlam Kandil-Elsayed v. F & E Oil Inc
We therefore disagree with driveway during daylight hours, I would reverse the Court of Appeals judgment . . . .”); Schooley v Consol Roadhouse of Taylor, LLC, 488 Mich App 981 , 982 (2010) (MARKMAN, J., dissenting) (“I continue to believe that an ordinary toilet paper dispenser does not constitute a ‘dangerous condition’ causing ‘an unreasonable risk of harm’ on a business premises.”). 23 See, e.g., Lymon v Freedland, 501 Mich 933 , 933 (2017) (MARKMAN, C.J., dissenting) (explaining that he would have granted leave to appeal to “provide greater clarity concerning the circumsta…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Carl Dean BLASENGAME, Defendant-Appellant.
v.
Carl Dean BLASENGAME, Defendant-Appellant.
131536.
Michigan Supreme Court.
Oct 25, 2006.
Published
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 4, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.