5 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Incgreen2 sentences2021If both these questions are answered in the affirmative, the action is subject to the procedural and substantive requirements that govern medical malpractice actions. [Id., quoting Bryant, 471 Mich at 422 (quotation marks omitted).] Before applying this test, though, the court must determine whether the medical malpractice claim is “being brought against someone who, or an entity that, is capable of malpractice.” Sabbagh, 329 Mich App at 336, quoting Bryant, 471 Mich at 420 (quotation marks omitted). “[J]ust because a party is capable of committing malpractice, it does not mean that a claim ag 2021If both these questions are answered in the affirmative, the action is subject to the procedural and substantive requirements that govern medical malpractice actions. [Id., quoting Bryant, 471 Mich at 422 (quotation marks omitted).] Before applying this test, though, the court must determine whether the medical malpractice claim is “being brought against someone who, or an entity that, is capable of malpractice.” Sabbagh, 329 Mich App at 336, quoting Bryant, 471 Mich at 420 (quotation marks omitted). “[J]ust because a party is capable of committing malpractice, it does not mean that a claim ag | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tipton v. William Beaumont Hospital
green
2 sentences2021See Lucas, 299 Mich at 360-364 (applying the Bryant test to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotion distress and fraud actually sounded in medical malpractice); Tipton v William Beaumont Hosp, 266 Mich App 27, 34 ; 697 NW2d 552 (2005) (“Although our Supreme Court applied this test in the context of determining whether an ordinary negligence claim actually sounded in medical malpractice, the test succinctly sets forth the ‘two defining characteristics’ of a medical malpractice claim. 2021See Lucas, 299 Mich at 360-364 (applying the Bryant test to determine whether the plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotion distress and fraud actually sounded in medical malpractice); Tipton v William Beaumont Hosp, 266 Mich App 27, 34 ; 697 NW2d 552 (2005) (“Although our Supreme Court applied this test in the context of determining whether an ordinary negligence claim actually sounded in medical malpractice, the test succinctly sets forth the ‘two defining characteristics’ of a medical malpractice claim. | 3 | 2015–2021 |
Lucas v. Awaad
green
2 sentences2021The second prong of the Bryant test also is met here because plaintiff’s claim “raises questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021The second prong of the Bryant test also is met here because plaintiff’s claim “raises questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Woodrow v. Johns
green
2 sentences1988In Crane , this Court further elaborated on the Bryant test by quoting 46 ALR2d 9, 13, 19: "In determining the admissibility of evidence concerning the manner in which a participant in an accident was driving a vehicle before he reached the scene of the accident as against the objection that the testimony is remote, the most important factor is the degree of probability that the conduct continued until the accident occurred.” (Emphasis added.) [ 41 Mich App 17 .] In Woodrow v Johns, 61 Mich App 255, 265 ; 232 NW2d 688 (1975), this Court applied the Crane test and held that evidence of the defe 1988In Crane , this Court further elaborated on the Bryant test by quoting 46 ALR2d 9, 13, 19: "In determining the admissibility of evidence concerning the manner in which a participant in an accident was driving a vehicle before he reached the scene of the accident as against the objection that the testimony is remote, the most important factor is the degree of probability that the conduct continued until the accident occurred.” (Emphasis added.) [ 41 Mich App 17 .] In Woodrow v Johns, 61 Mich App 255, 265 ; 232 NW2d 688 (1975), this Court applied the Crane test and held that evidence of the defe | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.