5 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Estate of Stangreen1 sentence2013The Court of Appeals indicated that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the action because of its hypothetical nature, but proceeded nonetheless to hold that by bringing the action, appellee had not thereby breached the no- contest clause. 2 I would grant leave to appeal to consider the following three questions: (a) as addressed at greater length in Justice VIVIANO’s thoughtful dissent, whether in light of MCL 700.7113 the trial court possessed jurisdiction to hear the instant declaratory judgment action, see McLeod v McLeod, 365 Mich 25 (1961); (b) whether the Court of Appeals erred by | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re Miller Osborne Perry Trust
green
2 sentences2020In In re Miller Osborne Perry Trust, 299 Mich App 525, 530 ; 831 NW2d 251 (2013), this Court explained that no-contest clauses are valid and enforceable, but they must be strictly construed. 2020Thus, the trustee’s and Hallquist’s distributions may be forfeited only if their actions “come strictly within the express terms of the no-contest clause at issue.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 3 | 2018–2020 |
Saier v. Saier
green
1 sentence2013Id. (quotation marks, citation, and emphasis omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
McLeod v. McLeod
green
1 sentence2013The Court of Appeals indicated that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the action because of its hypothetical nature, but proceeded nonetheless to hold that by bringing the action, appellee had not thereby breached the no- contest clause. 2 I would grant leave to appeal to consider the following three questions: (a) as addressed at greater length in Justice VIVIANO’s thoughtful dissent, whether in light of MCL 700.7113 the trial court possessed jurisdiction to hear the instant declaratory judgment action, see McLeod v McLeod, 365 Mich 25 (1961); (b) whether the Court of Appeals erred by | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.
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.