5 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Complaint of Knoxgreen2 sentences2024“Subject-matter jurisdiction pertains to the court’s abstract power over a class of cases, not to whether the facts of a particular case present a claim subject to the court’s authority.” In re Complaint of Knox, 255 Mich App 454, 457 ; 660 NW2d 777 (2003). 2024“Subject-matter jurisdiction pertains to the court’s abstract power over a class of cases, not to whether the facts of a particular case present a claim subject to the court’s authority.” In re Complaint of Knox, 255 Mich App 454, 457 ; 660 NW2d 777 (2003). | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Travelers Insurance v. Detroit Edison Co.
green
2 sentences2019“Subject-matter jurisdiction pertains to the court’s abstract power over a class of cases, not to whether the facts of a particular case present a claim subject to the court’s authority.” In re Complaint of Knox, 255 Mich App 454, 457 ; 660 NW2d 777 (2003), citing Traveler’s Ins Co v Detroit Edison, 465 Mich 185, 204 ; 631 NW2d 733 (2001). 2019“Subject-matter jurisdiction pertains to the court’s abstract power over a class of cases, not to whether the facts of a particular case present a claim subject to the court’s authority.” In re Complaint of Knox, 255 Mich App 454, 457 ; 660 NW2d 777 (2003), citing Traveler’s Ins Co v Detroit Edison, 465 Mich 185, 204 ; 631 NW2d 733 (2001). | 2 | 2003–2019 |
O’neal v. St John Hospital & Medical Center
green
2 sentences2025After examining MCL 600.2912a(2) (addressing the burden in a medical malpractice action), the Fulton decision, and O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr, 487 Mich 485, 495 ; 791 NW2d 853 (2010), our Court concluded that it was bound by a majority holding in O’Neal that Fulton was mischaracterized as a lost-opportunity case. 2025After examining MCL 600.2912a(2) (addressing the burden in a medical malpractice action), the Fulton decision, and O’Neal v St John Hosp & Med Ctr, 487 Mich 485, 495 ; 791 NW2d 853 (2010), our Court concluded that it was bound by a majority holding in O’Neal that Fulton was mischaracterized as a lost-opportunity case. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Clohset v. No Name Corp.
green
2 sentences2024“A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is determined only by reference to the allegations listed in the complaint.” Clohset v No Name Corp, 302 Mich App 550, 561 ; 840 NW2d 375 (2013) (cleaned up). 2024“A court’s subject-matter jurisdiction is determined only by reference to the allegations listed in the complaint.” Clohset v No Name Corp, 302 Mich App 550, 561 ; 840 NW2d 375 (2013) (cleaned up). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.