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 2 courts 1990–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sau-Tuk Industries, Inc. v. Allegan Countygreen2 sentences2021See MCL 168.552 (describing procedures 4 “Unpublished decisions of this Court are not precedentially binding, MCR 7.215(C)(1), but may be considered instructive or persuasive, Sau-Tuk Indus, Inc v Allegan Co, 316 Mich App 122, 137 ; 892 NW2d 33 (2016).” Broz v Plante & Moran, PLLC, 331 Mich App 39 , 47 n 1; 951 NW2d 64 (2020). -9- for challenges regarding nominating petitions). 2021See MCL 168.552 (describing procedures 4 “Unpublished decisions of this Court are not precedentially binding, MCR 7.215(C)(1), but may be considered instructive or persuasive, Sau-Tuk Indus, Inc v Allegan Co, 316 Mich App 122, 137 ; 892 NW2d 33 (2016).” Broz v Plante & Moran, PLLC, 331 Mich App 39 , 47 n 1; 951 NW2d 64 (2020). -9- for challenges regarding nominating petitions). | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Garrettgreen2 sentences2020Finally, we concluded that the plaintiff had “a clear legal right to performance of the Wayne County defendants’ statutory duties.” Id. at 45, 51 . 2020In Berry, 316 Mich App at 40 , the plaintiff, a registered voter, filed a complaint seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Wayne County defendants not to place the names of two candidates, the intervening defendants, on the ballot for the August 2, 2016 primary election. | 1 | 1 |
Lee v. MacOmb County Board of Commissionersgreen1 sentence2001These two cases were consolidated in the Court of Appeals, which largely reversed in Lee and affirmed in Walker. [4] The Court of Appeals majority concluded that plaintiffs had standing because they are "members of the class for whose benefit the Act was enacted" and because they are "detrimentally affected in a manner different from the public generally." 235 Mich. App at 332, 597 N.W.2d 545 . | 1 | 1 |
Feaheny v. Caldwellgreen2 sentences1990See Feaheny v Caldwell, 175 Mich App 291, 299-300 ; 437 NW2d 358 (1989) (motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted where there is an essential failure of proof). 1990See Feaheny v Caldwell, 175 Mich App 291, 299-300 ; 437 NW2d 358 (1989) (motion for directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be granted where there is an essential failure of proof). | 1 | 1 |
Palenkas v. Beaumont Hospitalgreen2 sentences1990See Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp, 432 Mich 527, 531-533 ; 443 NW2d 354 (1989). 1990See Palenkas v Beaumont Hosp, 432 Mich 527, 531-533 ; 443 NW2d 354 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Robert F Broz v. Plante & Moran Pllc
green
2 sentences2021See MCL 168.552 (describing procedures 4 “Unpublished decisions of this Court are not precedentially binding, MCR 7.215(C)(1), but may be considered instructive or persuasive, Sau-Tuk Indus, Inc v Allegan Co, 316 Mich App 122, 137 ; 892 NW2d 33 (2016).” Broz v Plante & Moran, PLLC, 331 Mich App 39 , 47 n 1; 951 NW2d 64 (2020). -9- for challenges regarding nominating petitions). 2021See MCL 168.552 (describing procedures 4 “Unpublished decisions of this Court are not precedentially binding, MCR 7.215(C)(1), but may be considered instructive or persuasive, Sau-Tuk Indus, Inc v Allegan Co, 316 Mich App 122, 137 ; 892 NW2d 33 (2016).” Broz v Plante & Moran, PLLC, 331 Mich App 39 , 47 n 1; 951 NW2d 64 (2020). -9- for challenges regarding nominating petitions). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Barrow v. City of Detroit Election Commission
green
2 sentences2020No costs, a significant question of public interest being involved. /s/ Anica Letica /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly /s/ James Robert Redford 4 We reject the Wayne County defendants’ argument that this appeal is moot, as we believe that this issue is “publicly significant, likely to recur, and yet likely to evade judicial review.” Barrow v Detroit Election Comm’n, 305 Mich App 649, 659-660 ; 854 NW2d 489 (2014) (quotation marks omitted) (reviewing a similar issue under this doctrine more than six months after the winning candidates took office). -9- 2020No costs, a significant question of public interest being involved. /s/ Anica Letica /s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly /s/ James Robert Redford 4 We reject the Wayne County defendants’ argument that this appeal is moot, as we believe that this issue is “publicly significant, likely to recur, and yet likely to evade judicial review.” Barrow v Detroit Election Comm’n, 305 Mich App 649, 659-660 ; 854 NW2d 489 (2014) (quotation marks omitted) (reviewing a similar issue under this doctrine more than six months after the winning candidates took office). -9- | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Whaley v. County of Saginaw
green
1 sentence1999Plaintiffs rely on Whaley v Saginaw Co, 941 F Supp 1483 (ED Mich, 1996) in support of their claim. | 1 | 1999–1999 |