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 1982–1985 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 |
|---|---|---|
Partrich v. Muscat
green
2 sentences1985In Partrich v Muscat, 84 Mich App 724, 729-730 ; 270 NW2d 506 (1978), this Court detailed the applicable rules for passing on a motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1): " 'The standard governing this Court’s review of a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment based on GCR 1963, 117.2(1) is well settled. 1985In Partrich v Muscat, 84 Mich App 724, 729-730 ; 270 NW2d 506 (1978), this Court detailed the applicable rules for passing on a motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1): " 'The standard governing this Court’s review of a grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment based on GCR 1963, 117.2(1) is well settled. | 4 | 1982–1985 |
Reed v. ST CLAIR RUBBER CO.
green
2 sentences1985The standard governing this Court’s review is stated in Reed v St Clair Rubber Co, 118 Mich App 1, 5 ; 324 NW2d 512 (1982): "A motion brought pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1) challenges the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs claim only. 1985The standard governing this Court’s review is stated in Reed v St Clair Rubber Co, 118 Mich App 1, 5 ; 324 NW2d 512 (1982): "A motion brought pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1) challenges the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs claim only. | 3 | 1984–1985 |
Borman's, Inc. v. Lake State Development Co.
green
2 sentences1983Borman’s, Inc v Lake State Development Co, 60 Mich App 175, 179 ; 230 NW2d 363 (1975); Todd v Biglow, 51 Mich App 346, 349 ; 214 NW2d 733 (1974). 1983Borman’s, Inc v Lake State Development Co, 60 Mich App 175, 179 ; 230 NW2d 363 (1975); Todd v Biglow, 51 Mich App 346, 349 ; 214 NW2d 733 (1974). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Todd v. Biglow
green
2 sentences1983Borman’s, Inc v Lake State Development Co, 60 Mich App 175, 179 ; 230 NW2d 363 (1975); Todd v Biglow, 51 Mich App 346, 349 ; 214 NW2d 733 (1974). 1983Borman’s, Inc v Lake State Development Co, 60 Mich App 175, 179 ; 230 NW2d 363 (1975); Todd v Biglow, 51 Mich App 346, 349 ; 214 NW2d 733 (1974). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.