5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2021 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Commissiongreen2 sentences2021But the fact that there was language from her partial dissent that the Rowland majority thought was well-put does not mean it adopted her position in toto. 45 that the Rowland majority did not view its analysis as speaking only to the prejudice requirement. 44 Id. at 210, 211, 213 . 45 Although not dispositive, I also find it telling how novel the majority’s conclusions are to the other jurists who are implicated in this proceeding. 2021But the fact that there was language from her partial dissent that the Rowland majority thought was well-put does not mean it adopted her position in toto. 45 that the Rowland majority did not view its analysis as speaking only to the prejudice requirement. 44 Id. at 210, 211, 213 . 45 Although not dispositive, I also find it telling how novel the majority’s conclusions are to the other jurists who are implicated in this proceeding. | 3 | 3 |
Gilliland Construction Co. v. State Highway Departmentgreen2 sentences1975The view that § 6431(1) is jurisdictional is fortified by the dictum of judge (now Chief Justice) Kavanagh in Gilliland Construction Co v State Highway Department, 4 Mich App 618, 621; 145 NW2d 384 (1966). 5 However, the Navarra Court applied the Carver standard to a construction contract claim dismissed in the Court of Claims for failure to comply with § 6431(1). 1975The view that § 6431(1) is jurisdictional is fortified by the dictum of judge (now Chief Justice) Kavanagh in Gilliland Construction Co v State Highway Department, 4 Mich App 618, 621; 145 NW2d 384 (1966). 5 However, the Navarra Court applied the Carver standard to a construction contract claim dismissed in the Court of Claims for failure to comply with § 6431(1). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Carver v. McKernan
red
2 sentences1975The Supreme Court reversed, not on the basis of Reich, but in light of Carver : "The Court * * * hereby reverses the opinion of the Court of Appeals and remands the case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Carver v McKernan, 390 Mich 96 (1973), where we held that 'only upon a showing of prejudice by failure to give such notice, may the claim against the [governmental authority] be dismissed.’ ” Defendant maintains that § 6431 is jurisdictional in character, Gilliland Const Co v State Highway Department, 4 Mich App 618; 145 NW2d 384 (1966), and therefore the Carver rule which req 1975The Supreme Court reversed, not on the basis of Reich, but in light of Carver : "The Court * * * hereby reverses the opinion of the Court of Appeals and remands the case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Carver v McKernan, 390 Mich 96 (1973), where we held that 'only upon a showing of prejudice by failure to give such notice, may the claim against the [governmental authority] be dismissed.’ ” Defendant maintains that § 6431 is jurisdictional in character, Gilliland Const Co v State Highway Department, 4 Mich App 618; 145 NW2d 384 (1966), and therefore the Carver rule which req | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Konyha v. Mount Clemens Civil Service Commission
green
2 sentences1975"While we decline to declare that the notice requirement of § 18 is constitutionally defective, we hold that only upon a showing of prejudice by failure to give such notice, may the claim against the fund be dismissed.” This Court’s position is that Carver signals a retreat from the Reich /rationale, and the recent Supreme Court decision in Navarra v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 393 Mich 773 ; 224 NW2d 833 (1974), 7 reveals that the Carver rule requiring the governmental agency to show prejudice before a claim is dismissed for lack of notice applies to the Court of Claims Ac 1975"While we decline to declare that the notice requirement of § 18 is constitutionally defective, we hold that only upon a showing of prejudice by failure to give such notice, may the claim against the fund be dismissed.” This Court’s position is that Carver signals a retreat from the Reich /rationale, and the recent Supreme Court decision in Navarra v Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, 393 Mich 773 ; 224 NW2d 833 (1974), 7 reveals that the Carver rule requiring the governmental agency to show prejudice before a claim is dismissed for lack of notice applies to the Court of Claims Ac | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.