Luttrell standard (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

Luttrell standard in Michigan

5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2011 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 (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Department of Labor & Economic Growthgreen
michctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See ante at 80 n. 23 ("it appears that defendant's repeated references to `overall' premiums and `overall' losses are to industry-wide premiums and losses."). [14] Michigan Employment Relations Comm. v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 124 , 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974). [15] See, e.g., In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 97-99 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [16] Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Labor & Economic Growth, 276 Mich.App. 467, 476 , 741 N.W.2d 531 (2007) (emphasis in original), vacated in part on other grounds in Home Builders, 481 Mich. at 501 , 750 N.W.2d 593 . [17] Co

2010See ante at 80 n. 23 ("it appears that defendant's repeated references to `overall' premiums and `overall' losses are to industry-wide premiums and losses."). [14] Michigan Employment Relations Comm. v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 124 , 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974). [15] See, e.g., In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 97-99 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [16] Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Labor & Economic Growth, 276 Mich.App. 467, 476 , 741 N.W.2d 531 (2007) (emphasis in original), vacated in part on other grounds in Home Builders, 481 Mich. at 501 , 750 N.W.2d 593 . [17] Co

11
In Re Ashmangreen
mich · 2008 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010See ante at 80 n. 23 ("it appears that defendant's repeated references to `overall' premiums and `overall' losses are to industry-wide premiums and losses."). [14] Michigan Employment Relations Comm. v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 124 , 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974). [15] See, e.g., In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 97-99 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [16] Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Labor & Economic Growth, 276 Mich.App. 467, 476 , 741 N.W.2d 531 (2007) (emphasis in original), vacated in part on other grounds in Home Builders, 481 Mich. at 501 , 750 N.W.2d 593 . [17] Co

11
Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Department of Labor & Economic Growth Directorgreen
mich · 2008 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010See ante at 80 n. 23 ("it appears that defendant's repeated references to `overall' premiums and `overall' losses are to industry-wide premiums and losses."). [14] Michigan Employment Relations Comm. v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 124 , 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974). [15] See, e.g., In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 97-99 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [16] Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Labor & Economic Growth, 276 Mich.App. 467, 476 , 741 N.W.2d 531 (2007) (emphasis in original), vacated in part on other grounds in Home Builders, 481 Mich. at 501 , 750 N.W.2d 593 . [17] Co

11
In Re Complaint of Rovas Against Sbcgreen
mich · 2008 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010However, I do so as part of the second prong of my Luttrell analysis, ascertaining whether the OFIS rules comply with legislative intent. [7] For example, the majority offers no authority to support its conclusion that the Commissioner exceeded her authority by "enacting a total ban on a practice that the Insurance Code permits." Ante at 87. [8] In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 108 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [9] Ante at 74 (emphasis added). [10] For an error to be "harmless," it cannot "affect a party's substantive rights or the case's outcome." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), p. 582. [11] The ma

2010See ante at 80 n. 23 ("it appears that defendant's repeated references to `overall' premiums and `overall' losses are to industry-wide premiums and losses."). [14] Michigan Employment Relations Comm. v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 124 , 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974). [15] See, e.g., In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 97-99 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [16] Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Labor & Economic Growth, 276 Mich.App. 467, 476 , 741 N.W.2d 531 (2007) (emphasis in original), vacated in part on other grounds in Home Builders, 481 Mich. at 501 , 750 N.W.2d 593 . [17] Co

11
Michigan Employment Relations Commission v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Incgreen
mich · 1974 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010See ante at 80 n. 23 ("it appears that defendant's repeated references to `overall' premiums and `overall' losses are to industry-wide premiums and losses."). [14] Michigan Employment Relations Comm. v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 124 , 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974). [15] See, e.g., In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 97-99 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [16] Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Labor & Economic Growth, 276 Mich.App. 467, 476 , 741 N.W.2d 531 (2007) (emphasis in original), vacated in part on other grounds in Home Builders, 481 Mich. at 501 , 750 N.W.2d 593 . [17] Co

2010See ante at 80 n. 23 ("it appears that defendant's repeated references to `overall' premiums and `overall' losses are to industry-wide premiums and losses."). [14] Michigan Employment Relations Comm. v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 124 , 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974). [15] See, e.g., In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 97-99 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [16] Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Labor & Economic Growth, 276 Mich.App. 467, 476 , 741 N.W.2d 531 (2007) (emphasis in original), vacated in part on other grounds in Home Builders, 481 Mich. at 501 , 750 N.W.2d 593 . [17] Co

11
Rovas v. SBC Michigangreen
mich · 2008 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010However, I do so as part of the second prong of my Luttrell analysis, ascertaining whether the OFIS rules comply with legislative intent. [7] For example, the majority offers no authority to support its conclusion that the Commissioner exceeded her authority by "enacting a total ban on a practice that the Insurance Code permits." Ante at 87. [8] In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 108 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [9] Ante at 74 (emphasis added). [10] For an error to be "harmless," it cannot "affect a party's substantive rights or the case's outcome." Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.), p. 582. [11] The ma

2010See ante at 80 n. 23 ("it appears that defendant's repeated references to `overall' premiums and `overall' losses are to industry-wide premiums and losses."). [14] Michigan Employment Relations Comm. v. Detroit Symphony Orchestra, Inc., 393 Mich. 116, 124 , 223 N.W.2d 283 (1974). [15] See, e.g., In re Rovas Complaint, 482 Mich. at 97-99 , 754 N.W.2d 259 . [16] Michigan Ass'n of Home Builders v. Director of Labor & Economic Growth, 276 Mich.App. 467, 476 , 741 N.W.2d 531 (2007) (emphasis in original), vacated in part on other grounds in Home Builders, 481 Mich. at 501 , 750 N.W.2d 593 . [17] Co

11
Toole v. Michigan State Board of Dentistrygreen
mich · 1943 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Mich Admin Law, supra, § 4:35, p 222; see, also, Toole v Michigan State Bd of Dentistry, 306 Mich 527, 533-534 ; 11 NW2d 229 (1943); Sterling Secret Service, Inc v Dep’t of State Police, 20 Mich App 502, 514 ; 174 NW2d 298 (1969).

2007Mich Admin Law, supra, § 4:35, p 222; see, also, Toole v Michigan State Bd of Dentistry, 306 Mich 527, 533-534 ; 11 NW2d 229 (1943); Sterling Secret Service, Inc v Dep’t of State Police, 20 Mich App 502, 514 ; 174 NW2d 298 (1969).

11

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
Luttrell v. Department of Corrections green
mich · 1985
2 sentences

2008STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to this case is found in Chesapeake & O R Co v Pub Service Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975), and was adopted by our Supreme Court in Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984) (the “Luttrell standard”): 3 Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets

2008STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to this case is found in Chesapeake & O R Co v Pub Service Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975), and was adopted by our Supreme Court in Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984) (the “Luttrell standard”): 3 Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets

22008–2011
Viculin v. Department of Civil Service green
mich · 1971
2 sentences

2010The latter must be “ ‘authorized by law’ ” and its factual findings “ ‘supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record.’ ” Viculin v Dep’t of Civil Serv, 386 Mich 375, 384 ; 192 NW2d 449 (1971), quoting Const 1963, art 6, § 28.

2010The latter must be “ ‘authorized by law’ ” and its factual findings “ ‘supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record.’ ” Viculin v Dep’t of Civil Serv, 386 Mich 375, 384 ; 192 NW2d 449 (1971), quoting Const 1963, art 6, § 28.

22010–2010
Wolverine Power Supply Cooperative, Inc v. Department of Environmental Quality green
michctapp · 2009
2 sentences

2011This requires us to ask whether Rule 2196 falls within the subject matter of the NREPA, see Luttrell, 421 Mich at 100 , and is essentially a question of statutory construction, see Wolverine Power, 285 Mich App at 557-558 .

2011This requires us to ask whether Rule 2196 falls within the subject matter of the NREPA, see Luttrell, 421 Mich at 100 , and is essentially a question of statutory construction, see Wolverine Power, 285 Mich App at 557-558 .

12011–2011
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Public Service Commission green
michctapp · 1975
2 sentences

2008STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to this case is found in Chesapeake & O R Co v Pub Service Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975), and was adopted by our Supreme Court in Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984) (the “Luttrell standard”): 3 Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets

2008STANDARD OF REVIEW The standard of review applicable to this case is found in Chesapeake & O R Co v Pub Service Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975), and was adopted by our Supreme Court in Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984) (the “Luttrell standard”): 3 Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets

12008–2008
Sterling Secret Service, Inc. v. Department of State Police green
michctapp · 1969
2 sentences

2007Mich Admin Law, supra, § 4:35, p 222; see, also, Toole v Michigan State Bd of Dentistry, 306 Mich 527, 533-534 ; 11 NW2d 229 (1943); Sterling Secret Service, Inc v Dep’t of State Police, 20 Mich App 502, 514 ; 174 NW2d 298 (1969).

2007Mich Admin Law, supra, § 4:35, p 222; see, also, Toole v Michigan State Bd of Dentistry, 306 Mich 527, 533-534 ; 11 NW2d 229 (1943); Sterling Secret Service, Inc v Dep’t of State Police, 20 Mich App 502, 514 ; 174 NW2d 298 (1969).

12007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.201 (5) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.263 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.264 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 24.312 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.100 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.210 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2109 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2110a (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2111 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2403 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.244 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2603 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check