cancellation clause in Michigan

5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1933–2018 0 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.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Wynn v. Farmers Insurance Groupgreen michctapp · 1980 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1984–1984 2 sentences 1984See and compare, Wynn v Farmers Ins Group, 98 Mich App 93, 96-97 ; 296 NW2d 197 (1980), and cases cited therein. 1984See and compare, Wynn v Farmers Ins Group, 98 Mich App 93, 96-97 ; 296 NW2d 197 (1980), and cases cited therein.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (15)

Case	Cited	Years
Depyper v. Safeco Insurance green michctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2018“The general rule is that effective cancellation requires strict compliance with the cancellation clause.” Depyper v Safeco Ins Co of America, 232 Mich App 433, 438 ; 591 NW2d 344 (1998). 2018“The general rule is that effective cancellation requires strict compliance with the cancellation clause.” Depyper v Safeco Ins Co of America, 232 Mich App 433, 438 ; 591 NW2d 344 (1998).	1	2018–2018
Blekkenk v. Allstate Insurance green michctapp · 1986 2 sentences 1998Blekkenk v Allstate Ins Co, 152 Mich App 65, 74 ; 393 NW2d 883 (1986). 1998Blekkenk v Allstate Ins Co, 152 Mich App 65, 74 ; 393 NW2d 883 (1986).	1	1998–1998
Skutt v. City of Grand Rapids green mich · 1936 2 sentences 1977In Skutt v Grand Rapids, 275 Mich 258, 263-265 ; 266 NW 344 (1936), our Supreme Court engaged in the following extended discussion of public policy in affirming the trial court’s refusal to 12 enforce a contract on the grounds that it was contrary to public policy: "The rule of public policy as enunciated by Mr. W. 1977In Skutt v Grand Rapids, 275 Mich 258, 263-265 ; 266 NW 344 (1936), our Supreme Court engaged in the following extended discussion of public policy in affirming the trial court’s refusal to 12 enforce a contract on the grounds that it was contrary to public policy: "The rule of public policy as enunciated by Mr. W.	1	1977–1977
State Automobile Mutual Insurance v. Babcock green michctapp · 1974 1 sentence 1977No costs. 1 Babcock, supra, 54 Mich App at 206 and cases cited therein. 2 As noted above, the cancellation clause could be read consistently with provisions allowing cancellation only with or without cause.	1	1977–1977
Emery v. . Baltz green ny · 1884 1 sentence 1933J. p. 94; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N. Y. 408 ; Ricketson v. Lizotte, 90 Vt. 386 ( 98 Atl. 801 ); LaRose v. Logansport Nat’l Bank, 102 Ind. 332 ( 1 N. E. 805 ); Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153 ( 29 N. E. 1011 ); Jeudevine v. Rose, 36 Mich. 54 .	1	1933–1933
Reilly v. . Dodge neutral ny · 1892 2 sentences 1933J. p. 94; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N. Y. 408 ; Ricketson v. Lizotte, 90 Vt. 386 ( 98 Atl. 801 ); LaRose v. Logansport Nat’l Bank, 102 Ind. 332 ( 1 N. E. 805 ); Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153 ( 29 N. E. 1011 ); Jeudevine v. Rose, 36 Mich. 54 . 1933J. p. 94; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N. Y. 408 ; Ricketson v. Lizotte, 90 Vt. 386 ( 98 Atl. 801 ); LaRose v. Logansport Nat’l Bank, 102 Ind. 332 ( 1 N. E. 805 ); Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153 ( 29 N. E. 1011 ); Jeudevine v. Rose, 36 Mich. 54 .	1	1933–1933
Snattinger v. City of Topeka green kan · 1909 2 sentences 1933J. p. 589; Yeargain v. Board of Com’rs, supra; Manitowoc County v. Truman, 91 Wis. 1 ( 64 N. W. 307 ); Snattinger v. City of Topeka, 80 Kan. 341 ( 102 Pac. 508 ); State Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 637 ( 112 S. W. 678 ); City of Pocatello v. Fargo, supra; City of Cheyenne v. Maryland Casualty Co., 13 Fed. (2d) 401. 1933J. p. 589; Yeargain v. Board of Com’rs, supra; Manitowoc County v. Truman, 91 Wis. 1 ( 64 N. W. 307 ); Snattinger v. City of Topeka, 80 Kan. 341 ( 102 Pac. 508 ); State Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 637 ( 112 S. W. 678 ); City of Pocatello v. Fargo, supra; City of Cheyenne v. Maryland Casualty Co., 13 Fed. (2d) 401.	1	1933–1933
Board of County Commissioners v. Lake State Bank green kan · 1927 2 sentences 1933In Southern Surety Co. v. County of Cochise, 27 Ariz. 473 ( 233 Pac. 897 ), and Board of County Com’rs v. Lake State Bank, 122 Kan. 222 , 124 Kan. 372 ( 252 Pac. 475 , 260 Pac. 630 ), pro rata clauses were held invalid because they were in contravention of express terms of statute. 1933In Southern Surety Co. v. County of Cochise, 27 Ariz. 473 ( 233 Pac. 897 ), and Board of County Com’rs v. Lake State Bank, 122 Kan. 222 , 124 Kan. 372 ( 252 Pac. 475 , 260 Pac. 630 ), pro rata clauses were held invalid because they were in contravention of express terms of statute.	1	1933–1933
Board of County Commissioners v. Lake State Bank neutral kan · 1927 2 sentences 1933In Southern Surety Co. v. County of Cochise, 27 Ariz. 473 ( 233 Pac. 897 ), and Board of County Com’rs v. Lake State Bank, 122 Kan. 222 , 124 Kan. 372 ( 252 Pac. 475 , 260 Pac. 630 ), pro rata clauses were held invalid because they were in contravention of express terms of statute. 1933In Southern Surety Co. v. County of Cochise, 27 Ariz. 473 ( 233 Pac. 897 ), and Board of County Com’rs v. Lake State Bank, 122 Kan. 222 , 124 Kan. 372 ( 252 Pac. 475 , 260 Pac. 630 ), pro rata clauses were held invalid because they were in contravention of express terms of statute.	1	1933–1933
Ricketson v. Lizotte green vt · 1916 2 sentences 1933J. p. 94; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N. Y. 408 ; Ricketson v. Lizotte, 90 Vt. 386 ( 98 Atl. 801 ); LaRose v. Logansport Nat’l Bank, 102 Ind. 332 ( 1 N. E. 805 ); Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153 ( 29 N. E. 1011 ); Jeudevine v. Rose, 36 Mich. 54 . 1933J. p. 94; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N. Y. 408 ; Ricketson v. Lizotte, 90 Vt. 386 ( 98 Atl. 801 ); LaRose v. Logansport Nat’l Bank, 102 Ind. 332 ( 1 N. E. 805 ); Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153 ( 29 N. E. 1011 ); Jeudevine v. Rose, 36 Mich. 54 .	1	1933–1933
Jeudevine v. Rose green mich · 1877 1 sentence 1933J. p. 94; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N. Y. 408 ; Ricketson v. Lizotte, 90 Vt. 386 ( 98 Atl. 801 ); LaRose v. Logansport Nat’l Bank, 102 Ind. 332 ( 1 N. E. 805 ); Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153 ( 29 N. E. 1011 ); Jeudevine v. Rose, 36 Mich. 54 .	1	1933–1933
LaRose v. Logansport National Bank green ind · 1885 2 sentences 1933J. p. 94; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N. Y. 408 ; Ricketson v. Lizotte, 90 Vt. 386 ( 98 Atl. 801 ); LaRose v. Logansport Nat’l Bank, 102 Ind. 332 ( 1 N. E. 805 ); Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153 ( 29 N. E. 1011 ); Jeudevine v. Rose, 36 Mich. 54 . 1933J. p. 94; Emery v. Baltz, 94 N. Y. 408 ; Ricketson v. Lizotte, 90 Vt. 386 ( 98 Atl. 801 ); LaRose v. Logansport Nat’l Bank, 102 Ind. 332 ( 1 N. E. 805 ); Reilly v. Dodge, 131 N. Y. 153 ( 29 N. E. 1011 ); Jeudevine v. Rose, 36 Mich. 54 .	1	1933–1933
Southern Surety Co. v. County of Cochise neutral ariz · 1925 2 sentences 1933In Southern Surety Co. v. County of Cochise, 27 Ariz. 473 ( 233 Pac. 897 ), and Board of County Com’rs v. Lake State Bank, 122 Kan. 222 , 124 Kan. 372 ( 252 Pac. 475 , 260 Pac. 630 ), pro rata clauses were held invalid because they were in contravention of express terms of statute. 1933In Southern Surety Co. v. County of Cochise, 27 Ariz. 473 ( 233 Pac. 897 ), and Board of County Com’rs v. Lake State Bank, 122 Kan. 222 , 124 Kan. 372 ( 252 Pac. 475 , 260 Pac. 630 ), pro rata clauses were held invalid because they were in contravention of express terms of statute.	1	1933–1933
Manitowoc County v. Truman neutral · 1895 2 sentences 1933J. p. 589; Yeargain v. Board of Com’rs, supra; Manitowoc County v. Truman, 91 Wis. 1 ( 64 N. W. 307 ); Snattinger v. City of Topeka, 80 Kan. 341 ( 102 Pac. 508 ); State Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 637 ( 112 S. W. 678 ); City of Pocatello v. Fargo, supra; City of Cheyenne v. Maryland Casualty Co., 13 Fed. (2d) 401. 1933J. p. 589; Yeargain v. Board of Com’rs, supra; Manitowoc County v. Truman, 91 Wis. 1 ( 64 N. W. 307 ); Snattinger v. City of Topeka, 80 Kan. 341 ( 102 Pac. 508 ); State Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 637 ( 112 S. W. 678 ); City of Pocatello v. Fargo, supra; City of Cheyenne v. Maryland Casualty Co., 13 Fed. (2d) 401.	1	1933–1933
State Nat. Bank v. Commonwealth neutral kyctapp · 1908 2 sentences 1933J. p. 589; Yeargain v. Board of Com’rs, supra; Manitowoc County v. Truman, 91 Wis. 1 ( 64 N. W. 307 ); Snattinger v. City of Topeka, 80 Kan. 341 ( 102 Pac. 508 ); State Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 637 ( 112 S. W. 678 ); City of Pocatello v. Fargo, supra; City of Cheyenne v. Maryland Casualty Co., 13 Fed. (2d) 401. 1933J. p. 589; Yeargain v. Board of Com’rs, supra; Manitowoc County v. Truman, 91 Wis. 1 ( 64 N. W. 307 ); Snattinger v. City of Topeka, 80 Kan. 341 ( 102 Pac. 508 ); State Nat’l Bank v. Commonwealth, 129 Ky. 637 ( 112 S. W. 678 ); City of Pocatello v. Fargo, supra; City of Cheyenne v. Maryland Casualty Co., 13 Fed. (2d) 401.	1	1933–1933

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3020 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TN 34 (2000–2026) NY 20 (1898–2021) IL 16 (1908–2010) CA 14 (1933–2022) TX 7 (1913–2012) DC 6 (1960–1997) LA 6 (1936–2010) MD 5 (1911–2009) AR 5 (1934–1994) PA 5 (1950–2005) MI 5 (1933–2018) MO 4 (1987–2015) FL 3 (1986–2002) SC 3 (1961–1983) WI 3 (2002–2016) CT 3 (1997–2003) AL 3 (1921–1983) VA 3 (1932–1958) OK 3 (1909–1938) ND 2 (2011–2011) NM 2 (1943–1991) NJ 2 (1907–2005) IA 2 (1958–1965) GA 2 (1941–1958) WV 2 (1993–2015) DE 2 (1958–2023) MS 2 (1889–1970) IN 2 (2020–2020) OH 2 (1953–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check