5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States Ex Rel. Stevens
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 773 . 2007Id. at 773 , 120 S.Ct. 1858 . | 2 | 2004–2007 |
Louwaert v. D. Graff & Sons
green
1 sentence2022Although the assignee of a claim has no greater rights than the assignor, see Innis v Heft, 217 Mich 39, 43 ; 185 NW 767 (1921), once the claims are assigned, the assignor no longer owns the claims and has no power to bind the assignee, see Saginaw Fin Corp v Detroit Lubricator Co, 256 Mich 441, 443-444 ; 240 NW 44 (1932). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Saginaw Financing Corp. v. Detroit Lubricator Co.
green
1 sentence2022Although the assignee of a claim has no greater rights than the assignor, see Innis v Heft, 217 Mich 39, 43 ; 185 NW 767 (1921), once the claims are assigned, the assignor no longer owns the claims and has no power to bind the assignee, see Saginaw Fin Corp v Detroit Lubricator Co, 256 Mich 441, 443-444 ; 240 NW 44 (1932). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Innis v. Heft
neutral
2 sentences2022Although the assignee of a claim has no greater rights than the assignor, see Innis v Heft, 217 Mich 39, 43 ; 185 NW 767 (1921), once the claims are assigned, the assignor no longer owns the claims and has no power to bind the assignee, see Saginaw Fin Corp v Detroit Lubricator Co, 256 Mich 441, 443-444 ; 240 NW 44 (1932). 2022Although the assignee of a claim has no greater rights than the assignor, see Innis v Heft, 217 Mich 39, 43 ; 185 NW 767 (1921), once the claims are assigned, the assignor no longer owns the claims and has no power to bind the assignee, see Saginaw Fin Corp v Detroit Lubricator Co, 256 Mich 441, 443-444 ; 240 NW 44 (1932). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Goehring
green
1 sentence2009The district court argued that in Goehring, supra at 364 , this Court interpreted the term “prosecution,” as *243 used in MCL 600.8408(1), 2 and concluded that the term was not restricted to any stage of the proceedings. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kimber v. Federal Financial Corp.
green
2 sentences2001The court held that even though ffc collects debts for itself, it is still a debt collector within the meaning of §§ 1692a(4) and 1692a(6) of the Act, because the corporation regularly collects debts and debt collection is the principal purpose, and because the debts the corporation collects were already in default when they were assigned to the corporation and thus the corporation falls within the assignee exception to the definition of creditor. [ Kimber, supra, I486.] The Kimber court went on to hold that because the defendant was subject to the fdcpa as a debt collector, it had violated se 2001Kimber, supra, 1488-1489 . *735 In the instant case, plaintiff concedes, and we agree, that it is a debt collector under the fdcpa. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.