liquidated claim (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

liquidated claim in Michigan

5 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1897–1939 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)

CaseFollowedCited
Schaible v. Ardnergreen
mich · 1893 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1897–1939
2 sentences

1939See Schaible v. Ardner, 98 Mich. 70 .

1923See Schaible v. Ardner, 98 Mich. 70 .

33

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District No. 4 neutral
mich · 1914
1 sentence

1937The case of Waterman-Waterbury Co. v. School District, No. 4, Cato Twp., 183 Mich. 168, 176 , also relied upon by appellees, defines a liquidated claim, such as will justify mandamus, as follows: .

11937–1937
People ex rel. Reeder v. Treasurer of Wexford neutral
mich · 1877
1 sentence

1914In the early case of Township of Marathon v. Oregon Township, 8 Mich. 372, cited by defendant, wherein it was held mandamus, and not assumpsit, was the proper remedy, the opening statement of the opinion thus sounds the distinction: “This suit is brought to recover an ascertained sum found by the united action of the township boards to be due from Oregon to Marathon, upon a division of the latter township, whereby the former was set apart and became liable for its share of the debts to be thus determined.” This is emphasized and further pointed out as controlling in the following: “The action

11914–1914
Township of Marathon v. Township of Oregon neutral
mich · 1860
1 sentence

1914In the early case of Township of Marathon v. Oregon Township, 8 Mich. 372, cited by defendant, wherein it was held mandamus, and not assumpsit, was the proper remedy, the opening statement of the opinion thus sounds the distinction: “This suit is brought to recover an ascertained sum found by the united action of the township boards to be due from Oregon to Marathon, upon a division of the latter township, whereby the former was set apart and became liable for its share of the debts to be thus determined.” This is emphasized and further pointed out as controlling in the following: “The action

11914–1914

Where else courts name it

AZ 50 (1972–2025) WA 46 (1928–2025) TX 44 (1912–2026) CA 21 (1933–2025) WY 21 (1976–2025) GA 20 (1960–2026) LA 19 (1933–2022) PA 14 (1924–2023) MO 13 (1949–2007) NJ 13 (1942–1993) OH 12 (1932–2016) NY 10 (1887–2022) KY 10 (1945–2024) MN 9 (1961–1996) MD 8 (1960–2007) WI 8 (1934–2019) CO 8 (1968–2021) IL 7 (1901–2017) KS 6 (1934–2025) FL 6 (1979–2001) DC 6 (1979–2013) MS 5 (1963–1998) IN 5 (1914–1974) MI 5 (1897–1939) ID 4 (1999–2021) OR 4 (1939–1987) IA 4 (1911–1947) NE 3 (1991–2019) DE 3 (1953–1969) SC 3 (1931–1942) OK 3 (1961–2000) VA 2 (1940–1960) WV 2 (1914–1985) SD 2 (1980–1986) NM 2 (1936–1975) TN 2 (2010–2015) MA 2 (1938–1939)

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