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 2017–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Detroitgreen1 sentence2023See Doe, 264 Mich App at 643 (explaining that the possible-cause-of-action standard governs when a plaintiff should have known of the existence of the claim in the context of the fraudulent concealment statute). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Solowy v. Oakwood Hospital Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Under the possible-cause-of-action standard, the plaintiff “need not know for certain that he had a claim, or even know of a likely claim . . . ” Id. 2020Under the possible-cause- of-action standard, the plaintiff “need not know for certain that he had a claim, or even know of a likely claim . . . ” Id. | 4 | 2017–2024 |
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.