Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Companygreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich 378, 420-425 (2007) (WEAVER, J., dissenting) (arguing that this Court should follow the common-law discovery rule regarding the accrual date of a claim for the purposes of a statute of limitations without regard to the subsequent enactment of a highly comprehensive statutory scheme meant to preempt the common law); Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand), 470 Mich 679, 709 (2004) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (suggesting we adopt a substantial compliance standard for notices of intent in medical malpractice actions “if they se | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Flint Board of Hospital Managersgreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich 378, 420-425 (2007) (WEAVER, J., dissenting) (arguing that this Court should follow the common-law discovery rule regarding the accrual date of a claim for the purposes of a statute of limitations without regard to the subsequent enactment of a highly comprehensive statutory scheme meant to preempt the common law); Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand), 470 Mich 679, 709 (2004) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (suggesting we adopt a substantial compliance standard for notices of intent in medical malpractice actions “if they se | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospitalgreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich 378, 420-425 (2007) (WEAVER, J., dissenting) (arguing that this Court should follow the common-law discovery rule regarding the accrual date of a claim for the purposes of a statute of limitations without regard to the subsequent enactment of a highly comprehensive statutory scheme meant to preempt the common law); Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand), 470 Mich 679, 709 (2004) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (suggesting we adopt a substantial compliance standard for notices of intent in medical malpractice actions “if they se | 1 | 1 |
McDougall v. Schanzgreen1 sentence2009See, e.g., Trentadue v Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co, 479 Mich 378, 420-425 (2007) (WEAVER, J., dissenting) (arguing that this Court should follow the common-law discovery rule regarding the accrual date of a claim for the purposes of a statute of limitations without regard to the subsequent enactment of a highly comprehensive statutory scheme meant to preempt the common law); Roberts v Mecosta Co Gen Hosp (After Remand), 470 Mich 679, 709 (2004) (Kelly, J., dissenting) (suggesting we adopt a substantial compliance standard for notices of intent in medical malpractice actions “if they se | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Joliet v. Pitoniak
green
1 sentence2024As discussed, however, the Supreme Court in Joliet clarified that the constructive discharge itself is not a cause of action, nor is it an action by the employer, “but simply the culmination of alleged wrongful actions that would cause a reasonable person to quit employment.” Joliet, 475 Mich at 41 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lafontaine Saline, Inc v. Chrysler Group LLC
green
1 sentence2024Id. at ___; slip op at 5. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Sziber v. Stout
green
2 sentences2015On appeal, Sylvan argues that the accrual date for its claim should be the same as the accrual for a claim of contribution by a joint tortfeasor, citing Sziber v Stout, 419 Mich 514, 533-534 ; 358 NW2d 330 (1984) (stating that a claim of contribution accrues when a judgment has been rendered and the plaintiff has paid more than his or her share). 2015On appeal, Sylvan argues that the accrual date for its claim should be the same as the accrual for a claim of contribution by a joint tortfeasor, citing Sziber v Stout, 419 Mich 514, 533-534 ; 358 NW2d 330 (1984) (stating that a claim of contribution accrues when a judgment has been rendered and the plaintiff has paid more than his or her share). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
BLUE CROSS AND SHIELD OF MICH. v. Folkema
green
2 sentences1995Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan v Folkema, 174 Mich App 476, 480-481 ; 436 NW2d 670 (1988). 3 We also are influenced by the lack of specificity in plaintiffs fraud claims. 1995Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan v Folkema, 174 Mich App 476, 480-481 ; 436 NW2d 670 (1988). 3 We also are influenced by the lack of specificity in plaintiffs fraud claims. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.