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 1 courts 1895–1935 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.
| 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 |
|---|---|---|
Anda v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co.
neutral
1 sentence1935Instead this case falls under the rule of Anda v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co., 231 Mich. 567, 570 , wherein Justice Wiest, writing for the court, said: “Defendant transit company, however, was not required to protect plaintiff from the unforeseen acts of third persons. | 1 | 1935–1935 |
Smitley v. Pinch
neutral
1 sentence1918We think the court was in error in admitting this testimony.” Counsel for appellee admit that this statement of the rule is correct, but it is contended and urged that by filing the plea of justification the defendant assails the reputation of the plaintiff, and that this amounts to a general attack, which permits the plaintiff to rebut the attack by offering evidence to show her good reputation, and that therefore the case falls under the rule announced in Smitley v. Pinch, supra, that where defendant has submitted testimony tending to show plaintiff’s general reputation for chastity to be ba | 1 | 1918–1918 |
Grand Lodge of Ancient Order of United Workmen v. Beath
neutral
2 sentences1912U. W. v. Beath, 150 Mich. 657 ( 114 N. W. 662 ). 1912U. W. v. Beath, 150 Mich. 657 ( 114 N. W. 662 ). | 1 | 1912–1912 |
Hand v. Auditor General
neutral
1 sentence1899The case falls in principle within the cases oh Hand v. Auditor General, 112 Mich. 597 ; Hough v. Auditor General, 116 Mich. 663 ; Carpenter v. Jones, 117 Mich. 91 ; Kneeland v. Wood, Id. 174 . | 1 | 1899–1899 |
Hough v. Auditor General
neutral
1 sentence1899The case falls in principle within the cases oh Hand v. Auditor General, 112 Mich. 597 ; Hough v. Auditor General, 116 Mich. 663 ; Carpenter v. Jones, 117 Mich. 91 ; Kneeland v. Wood, Id. 174 . | 1 | 1899–1899 |
Carpenter v. Jones
neutral
2 sentences1899The case falls in principle within the cases oh Hand v. Auditor General, 112 Mich. 597 ; Hough v. Auditor General, 116 Mich. 663 ; Carpenter v. Jones, 117 Mich. 91 ; Kneeland v. Wood, Id. 174 . 1899The case falls in principle within the cases oh Hand v. Auditor General, 112 Mich. 597 ; Hough v. Auditor General, 116 Mich. 663 ; Carpenter v. Jones, 117 Mich. 91 ; Kneeland v. Wood, Id. 174 . | 1 | 1899–1899 |
Gibbs v. Hanchette
green
1 sentence1895The case falls in principle within the rule laid down in Gibls v. Hanchette, 90 Mich. 657, 660 , in which.it was said: “The purpose of the statute is that an accurate and truthful claim shall be filed. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.