Hall v. General Motors Corp. (1998)

green · 121 citation events across 9 courts. Showing the 38 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 38

Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then

199820122026

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green James Yarber v. M.J. Electric, LLC (2020)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Motors Corp., 582 N.W.2d 866, 869 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (quoting Farrell v. Ford Motor Co., 501 N.W.2d 567, 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)); see Standard Fire Ins., 723 F.3d at 698–99.

quoting Farrell v. Ford Motor Co., 501 N.W.2d 567, 572 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993)

green Nat'l Continental Ins. Co. v. Nurbek Aiazbekov (2020)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Motors Corp., 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

green Kathy Gatza v. DCC Litigation Facility, Inc. (2015)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998); see Standard Fire Ins.

green Thompson I.G., LLC v. Edgetech I.G., Inc. (2014)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green The Standard Fire Insurance Co v. Ford Motor Company (2013)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Following Farrell’s lead, the Hall court held that North Carolina’s “substantial interest” in applying its law to the dispute outweighed Michigan’s “minimal interest.” Id. at 869.

green Wells Fargo Advantage National Tax Fee Fund v. Helicon Associates, Inc. (2013)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

The Michigan Court of Appeals later clarified this standard when it added that “[although this balancing approach most frequently favors using the forum’s (Michigan’s) law, Michigan courts nonetheless use another state’s law where the other state has a significant interest and Michigan has only a minimal interest in the matter.” Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green CMACO Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Wanxiang America Corp. (2009)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 871 (1998) (Michigan’s borrowing statute “evidences, at a minimum, legislative intent to discourage suits in Michigan that would be time-barred in other states.”); Szlinis, 263 N.W.2d at 288 (the purpose of Michigan’s borrowing statute “is to resolve possible conflicts of laws that may arise when a plaintiffs claim arises outside the forum and to limit forum shopping.”) (citing Parish, 235 N.W.2d at 572 ).

Michigan’s borrowing statute “evidences, at a minimum, legislative intent to discourage suits in Michigan that would be time-barred in other states.”

green CMACO Automotive Systems, Inc. v. Wanxiang America Corp. (2009)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Motors Corp., 582 N.W.2d 866, 871 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (Michigan’s borrowing statute “evidences, at a minimum, legislative intent to discourage suits in Michigan that would be time-barred in other states.”); Szlinis, 263 N.W.2d at 288 (the purpose of Michigan’s borrowing statute “is to resolve possible conflicts of laws that may arise when a plaintiff’s claim arises outside the forum and to limit forum shopping.”) (citing Parish, 235 N.W.2d at 572 ).

Michigan’s borrowing statute “evidences, at a minimum, legislative intent to discourage suits in Michigan that would be time-barred in other states.”

green Williams v. Toys \R\" US" (2005)

Rule Authority · 6th Cir.

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green Bakshi v. Avis Budget Group, Inc. (2022)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich. · 5 citations in this opinion

Courts sitting in Michigan “use another state’s law [only] where the other state has a significant interest and Michigan has only a minimal interest in the matter.” Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich. App. 580, 585 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green Humphries v. Allstate Insurance Company (2020)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich. · 3 citations in this opinion

Here, although the present action generally stems from a breach of contract, the Court agrees with Plaintiff’s classification of Count II as one specifically of tort. 6 Hampshire v. Ford Motor Co., 399 N.W.2d 36 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986); Farrell v. Ford Motor Co., 501 N.W.2d 567 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993); Hall v. General Motors Corp., 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998); Mitchell v. McNeilus Truck & Mfg., Inc., No. 304124, 2012 WL 5233630 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2012).

green William v. BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES (2010)

Rule Authority · W.D. Mich. · 3 citations in this opinion

Hall v. GMC, 229 Mich.App. 580, 585 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (Mich.App.1998) (fact that plaintiff sustained his injury in North Carolina due to a defective auto part and was a NC citizen at the time of that injury, outweighed the fact that plaintiff had moved to Michigan before bringing suit); see also Farrell v. Ford Motor Co., 199 Mich.App. 81 , 501 N.W.2d 567 (Mich.App.1993); accord LL NJ, Inc. v. NBC-Subsidiary (WCAU-TV), L.P., 2008 WL 1923261 , *12-13 (E.D.Mich.

green Harshaw v. Bethany Christian Services (2010)

Rule Authority · W.D. Mich. · 3 citations in this opinion

green Sizzling Black Rock Steak House Franchising, Inc. v. Harold L. Kestenbaum, PC (2024)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

Motors Corp., 229 Mich. App. 580, 582 (1998).

green Jillson v. Elrod (2022)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

Motors Corp., 229 Mich. App. 580, 585 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998)).

green Molinar v. MTD Products Inc. (2021)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

“In tort cases, Michigan courts use a choice-of-law analysis called ‘interest analysis’ to determine which state’s law governs a suit where more than one state’s law may be implicated.” Hall v. General Motors, Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1988) (citing Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Serv., Ltd., 454 Mich. 274, 278-86 , 569 N.W.2d 466 (1977)); see also Yarber v. M.J.

green Franklin v. Haak (2020)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

Michigan courts “use another state’s law where the other state has a significant interest and Michigan has only a minimal interest in the matter.” Hall v. General Motors Corp., 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

green LePine v. Rosenbaum (2020)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

Federal courts sitting in Michigan “use another state’s law [only] where the other state has a significant interest and Michigan has only a minimal interest in the matter.” Hall v. General Motors Corp., 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).

green Atlas Technologies, LLC v. Levine (2017)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

Under this test, “Michigan courts ... use another state’s law where the other state has a significant interest and Michigan has only a minimal, interest in the matter.” Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580, 585 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green Lim v. Miller Parking Co. (2016)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

Courts, sitting in Michigan “use another state’s law [only] where the other state-has a significant interest and Michigan has only a minimal interest in the matter.” Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 ,-585, 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green Lim v. Miller Parking Co. (2016)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

green Bramberger v. Toledo Hospital (2012)

Rule Authority · N.D. Ohio

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green Linden v. CNH AMERICA LLC (2010)

Rule Authority · S.D. Iowa

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 870 (Mich.Ct.App. 1998) (after a survey of cases determining residence for choice-of-law purposes the court stated, "[t]he rationale that permeates these decisions is a judicial objective of preventing plaintiffs from forum shopping by post injury moves"); Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 432 P.2d 727, 730 (1967) (Traynor, CJ) ("[Plaintiff’s] residence and domicile at the time of the accident are the releva…

after a survey of cases determining residence for choice-of-law purposes the court stated, "[t]he rationale that permeates these decisions is a judicial objective of preventing plaintiffs from forum shopping by post injury moves"

green Linden v. CNH AMERICA LLC (2010)

Rule Authority · S.D. Iowa

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 870 (1998) (after a survey of cases determining residence for choice-of-law purposes the court stated, “[t]he rationale that permeates these decisions is a judicial objective of preventing plaintiffs from forum shopping by post injury moves”); Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551 , 63 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 432 P.2d 727, 730 (1967) (Traynor, CJ) (“[Plaintiffs] residence and domicile at the time of the accident are the relevant residence a…

after a survey of cases determining residence for choice-of-law purposes the court stated, “[t]he rationale that permeates these decisions is a judicial objective of preventing plaintiffs from forum shopping by post injury moves”

green Hernandez v. Ford Motor Co. (2008)

Rule Authority · Mich. Ct. App.

They ask the Court to consider Hall v General Motors, 229 Mich App, 580, at 55 [sic], 583 [sic] Northwest 2d, 866, a 1998 case.[ 49 ] The plaintiff asserts that Michigan law applies and asks the Court to look instead at Olmstead v Anderson, 428 Michigan [l].[ 50 ] Both cases apply an interesting analysis.

green Diamond Computer Systems, Inc. v. SBC Communications, Inc. (2006)

Rule Authority · E.D. Mich.

For tort cases, Michigan’s “balancing approach most frequently favors using the forum’s (Michigan’s) law.” Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580, 585 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green Kolesar v. United Agri Products, Inc. (2006)

Rule Authority · W.D. Mich.

Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 871 (1998); Farrell v. Ford Motor Co., 199 Mich.App. 81 , 501 N.W.2d 567 , 572 n. 3 (1993); Isley v. Capuchin Province, 878 F.Supp. 1021, 1024 (E.D.Mich.1995).

green Steelcase, Inc. v. Mar-Mol Co., Inc. (2002)

Rule Authority · W.D. Mich.

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580, 585 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998)(noting that Michigan uses an “interest analysis” in tort cases to determine choice-of-law which most frequently favors Michigan’s laws).

noting that Michigan uses an “interest analysis” in tort cases to determine choice-of-law which most frequently favors Michigan’s laws

green Gilcrease v. Tesoro Petroleum Corp. (2001)

Rule Authority · Tex. App.

See, e.g., Stuart v. American Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622 , 627 (2d Cir.1998) ("[T]he purpose of the borrowing statute — preventing forum shopping by plaintiffs seeking the holy grail of the longer period — is best served by applying the period of the foreign state, regardless of how it is denominated.”); Barnett v. Johnson, 839 F.Supp. 236, 238-40 (S.D.N.Y.1993); Giest v. Sequoia Ventures, Inc., 83 Cal.App.4th 300, 303-04 , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 476 (2000); Halt v. General Motors C…

green Fred Gilcrease and Dorothy Gilcrease v. Tesoro Petroleum Corporation (2001)

Rule Authority · Tex. App.

See, e.g., Stuart v. American Cyanamid Co., 158 F.3d 622 , 627 (2d Cir. 1998) ("[T]he purpose of the borrowing statute - preventing forum shopping by plaintiffs seeking the holy grail of the longer period - is best served by applying the period of the foreign state, regardless of how it is denominated."); Barnett v. Johnson, 839 F.Supp. 236, 238-40 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Giest v. Sequoia Ventures, Inc., 83 Cal.App.4th 300, 303-04 (Cal.App. 2000); Hall v. General Motors Corp., 582 …

green Tullis v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. (2000)

Rule Authority · Tex. App.

Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 870 (1998) (holding North Carolina statute of “repose” for actions based upon defects in products barred suit brought in Michigan, where plaintiff did not become a resident of Michigan until after injury); Reich v. Purcell, 67 Cal.2d 551, 555 , 68 Cal.Rptr. 31 , 34, 432 P.2d 727, 730 (1967) (declining to treat survivors in wrongful death suit as residents because they moved to California after accident); Ferren v. Gen.

holding North Carolina statute of “repose” for actions based upon defects in products barred suit brought in Michigan, where plaintiff did not become a resident of Michigan until after injury

green Jessica Maxwell v. FCA US, LLC (2023)

Cited · 6th Cir. · signal: see

See id. at 871 .

green R & D DISTRIBUTING CORP. v. Health-Mor Indus., Inc. (2000)

Cited · E.D. Mich. · signal: see · 3 citations in this opinion

See Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998).

green Saab Automobile AB v. General Motors Co. (2013)

Cited · E.D. Mich. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Hall v. GMC, 229 Mich.App. 580, 585 , 582 N.W.2d 866 (1998).

green Gardner v. Simon (2006)

Cited · W.D. Mich. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580 , 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998) (quoting Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Service, Ltd., 454 Mich. 274 , 562 N.W.2d 466 (1997)).

quoting Sutherland v. Kennington Truck Service, Ltd., 454 Mich. 274 , 562 N.W.2d 466 (1997)

green Meridian Leasing, Inc. v. Associated Aviation Underwriters, Inc. (2004)

Cited · W.D. Mich. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion

See Hall v. General Motors Corp., 229 Mich.App. 580, 582 N.W.2d 866, 868 (1998); Roskam Baking Company v. Lanham Machinery Co., Inc., 71 F.Supp.2d 736 , 744 n. 1 (W.D.Mich.1999). 3 .

green Kristina Rene Frost v. General Motors LLC (2021)

Cited (see also) · Mich. Ct. App. · signal: see, e.g.

See, e.g., Hall, 229 Mich App at 585-586 .

green John Madden v. Joseph a Avila (2016)

Cited · Mich. Ct. App. · signal: see

See Hall v Gen Motors Corp, 229 Mich App 580, 585-587 ; 582 NW2d 866 (1998) (describing the “interest analysis” applicable to “which state’s law governs a suit where more than one state’s law may be implicated”). 3 11 USC 108(a) states that “[i]f applicable nonbankruptcy law . . . fixes a period within which the debtor may commence an action, and such period has not expired before the date of the filing of the petition,” the trustee may commence such an action “two years aft…