39 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knue v. Smithgreen2 sentences2018On the merits of this appeal, however, the Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Knue v Smith, 478 Mich 88, 93 ; 731 NW2d 686 (2007), supports the trial court’s ruling that the offer of judgment rule contemplates that an offer lacking a “sum certain” does not satisfy MCR 2.405(A)(1). 2018On the merits of this appeal, however, the Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in Knue v Smith, 478 Mich 88, 93 ; 731 NW2d 686 (2007), supports the trial court’s ruling that the offer of judgment rule contemplates that an offer lacking a “sum certain” does not satisfy MCR 2.405(A)(1). | 3 | 6 |
Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowshipgreen2 sentences2021Stitt v Holland Abundant Life Fellowship, 243 Mich App 461, 475 ; 624 NW2d 461 (2000) (citation omitted). 2003Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship (On Remand), 243 Mich.App. 461, 472, 476-477 , 624 N.W.2d 427 (2000). [ Id. 205 n. 9, 667 N.W.2d 887 .] In sum, we conclude that if the trial court finds on the basis of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case and viewed in light of the purposes of MCR 2.403(O) that unusual circumstances exist, it may invoke the "interest of justice" exception found in MCR 2.403(O)(11). | 2 | 3 |
Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Clubgreen2 sentences2025“Under MCR 2.405, the offer of judgment rule, a party may serve on his or her opponent a written offer to stipulate [to] the entry of a judgment.” Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Co Club, 283 Mich App 264, 297 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009). 2021A. PRINCIPLES OF LAW “Under MCR 2.405, the offer of judgment rule, a party may serve on his or her opponent a written offer to stipulate the entry of a judgment.” Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 297 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009). | 1 | 11 |
Reitmeyer v. Schultz Equipment & Parts Co, Incgreen2 sentences2024There is no bright-line rule for determining when an amended or previous version of a rule applies; rather, the court “must look more closely to the particular circumstances of the case at issue and at the purpose of the amendment.” Id. at 342 .2 In Reitmeyer, the plaintiff moved for sanctions and attorney fees under the offer-of- judgment rule, MCR 2.405, which at that time, imposed sanctions against a party who rejected an offer of judgment and then received a less-favorable verdict. 2024Id. at 334-335 . | 1 | 4 |
Best Financial Corp. v. Lake States Insurancegreen2 sentences2017See Knue v Smith, 478 Mich 88, 93 ; 731 NW2d 686 (2007) (holding that the offer of judgment rule of MCR 2.405 did not apply to an offer of judgment requiring “a reciprocal exchange of cash for the execution of a recordable real estate document culminating in a judgment of dismissal with prejudice and without costs”); Best Fin Corp v Lake States Ins Co, 245 Mich App 383, 386-388 ; 628 NW2d 76 (2001) (holding that an offer to settle “contingent upon a dismissal of this case with a Confidentiality Agreement and a termination of the relationship between Best Insurance and Lake States” was not an o 2017See Knue v Smith, 478 Mich 88, 93 ; 731 NW2d 686 (2007) (holding that the offer of judgment rule of MCR 2.405 did not apply to an offer of judgment requiring “a reciprocal exchange of cash for the execution of a recordable real estate document culminating in a judgment of dismissal with prejudice and without costs”); Best Fin Corp v Lake States Ins Co, 245 Mich App 383, 386-388 ; 628 NW2d 76 (2001) (holding that an offer to settle “contingent upon a dismissal of this case with a Confidentiality Agreement and a termination of the relationship between Best Insurance and Lake States” was not an o | 1 | 3 |
Maiden v. Rozwoodgreen2 sentences2026Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999), citing MCR 2.116(G)(5). 2026Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 120; 597 NW2d 817 (1999), citing MCR 2.116(G)(5). | 1 | 1 |
Tennine Corp. v. Boardwalk Commercial, LLCgreen1 sentence2019“The purpose of the offer of judgment rule is to avoid protracted litigation and encourage settlement.” Tennine Corp, 315 Mich App at 18 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Department of Transportation v. Randolphgreen1 sentence2005The trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s actions constituted “gamesmanship” that was unnecessarily costly to plaintiff, making unjust defendant’s recovery of expenses it elected to create, is not “ ‘so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.’ ” Dep’t of Transportation, supra at 768, quoting Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219, 227 ; 600 NW2d 638 (1999) (citations deleted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bowman
green
2 sentences2025“Under MCR 2.405, the offer of judgment rule, a party may serve on his or her opponent a written offer to stipulate [to] the entry of a judgment.” Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Co Club, 283 Mich App 264, 297 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009). 2021A. PRINCIPLES OF LAW “Under MCR 2.405, the offer of judgment rule, a party may serve on his or her opponent a written offer to stipulate the entry of a judgment.” Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 297 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009). | 9 | 2016–2026 |
Luidens v. 63rd District Court
green
2 sentences2020In Haliw, this Court considered Luidens v 63rd Dist Court, 219 Mich App 24, 36 ; 555 NW2d 709 (1996), in which this Court had interpreted the offer-of-judgment rule in MCR 2.405 in analyzing the applicability of the interest- of-justice exception. 2020In Haliw, this Court considered Luidens v 63rd Dist Court, 219 Mich App 24, 36 ; 555 NW2d 709 (1996), in which this Court had interpreted the offer-of-judgment rule in MCR 2.405 in analyzing the applicability of the interest- of-justice exception. | 6 | 1999–2020 |
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereyken
green
2 sentences2024A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW “In general, the interpretation and application of the offer-of-judgment rule is reviewed de novo.” AFP Specialties, Inc v Vereyken, 303 Mich App 497, 516 ; 844 NW2d 470 (2014). 2023DISCUSSION A. STANDARDS OF REVIEW “In general, the interpretation and application of the offer-of-judgment rule is reviewed de novo.” AFP Specialties, Inc v Vereyken, 303 Mich App 497, 516 ; 844 NW2d 470 (2014). | 5 | 2018–2025 |
Simcor Construction Inc v. Carl J Trupp III
green
2 sentences2022This is known as ‘the offer of judgment rule.’ The purpose of MCR 2.405 is to encourage settlement and to deter protracted litigation.” Simcor Constr, Inc v Trupp, 322 Mich App 508, 514-515 ; 912 NW2d 216 (2018) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2022This is known as ‘the offer of judgment rule.’ The purpose of MCR 2.405 is to encourage settlement and to deter protracted litigation.” Simcor Constr, Inc v Trupp, 322 Mich App 508, 514-515 ; 912 NW2d 216 (2018) (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 3 | 2019–2022 |
Weiss v. Hodge
green
2 sentences2019Weiss v Hodge (After Remand), 223 Mich App 620, 640 ; 567 NW2d 468 (1997). 2019Weiss v Hodge (After Remand), 223 Mich App 620, 640 ; 567 NW2d 468 (1997). | 2 | 2004–2019 |
Castillo v. Exclusive Builders, Inc
green
2 sentences2018Additionally, this Court reviews “de novo the interpretation and application of the offer of judgment rule.” Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 297 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009), citing Castillo v Exclusive Builders, Inc, 273 Mich App 489, 492 ; 733 NW2d 62 (2007). 2018Additionally, this Court reviews “de novo the interpretation and application of the offer of judgment rule.” Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich App 264, 297 ; 769 NW2d 234 (2009), citing Castillo v Exclusive Builders, Inc, 273 Mich App 489, 492 ; 733 NW2d 62 (2007). | 2 | 2014–2018 |
Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights
green
2 sentences2007Per MCR 2.405(E), costs may not be awarded under the offer of judgment rule in a case that has been submitted to case evaluation under MCR 2.403 unless the case evaluation award was not unanimous. [2] This rule provides, "The court may, in the interest of justice, refuse to award an attorney fee under this rule." [3] 269 Mich.App. 217 , 711 N.W.2d 84 (2005). [1] 471 Mich. 700 , 691 N.W.2d 753 (2005). 2007Per MCR 2.405(E), costs may not be awarded under the offer of judgment rule in a case that has been submitted to case evaluation under MCR 2.403 unless the case evaluation award was not unanimous. [2] This rule provides, "The court may, in the interest of justice, refuse to award an attorney fee under this rule." [3] 269 Mich.App. 217 , 711 N.W.2d 84 (2005). [1] 471 Mich. 700 , 691 N.W.2d 753 (2005). | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Hamilton v. Becker Orthopedic Appliance Co.
green
2 sentences2018“The purpose of MCR 2.405 is ‘to encourage settlement and to deter protracted litigation.’ ” Luidens v 63rd Dist Court, 219 Mich App 24, 31 ; 555 NW2d 709 (1996), citing Hamilton v Becker Orthopedic Appliance Co, 214 Mich App 593, 596 ; 543 NW2d 60 (1995). 2018“The purpose of MCR 2.405 is ‘to encourage settlement and to deter protracted litigation.’ ” Luidens v 63rd Dist Court, 219 Mich App 24, 31 ; 555 NW2d 709 (1996), citing Hamilton v Becker Orthopedic Appliance Co, 214 Mich App 593, 596 ; 543 NW2d 60 (1995). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Smith v. Khouri
green
2 sentences2017"We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's award of attorney fees and costs." Smith v. Khouri , 481 Mich. 519 , 526, 751 N.W.2d 472 (2008). 2017"We review for an abuse of discretion a trial court's award of attorney fees and costs." Smith v. Khouri , 481 Mich. 519 , 526, 751 N.W.2d 472 (2008). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Knue v. Smith
neutral
2 sentences2007Per MCR 2.405(E), costs may not be awarded under the offer of judgment rule in a case that has been submitted to case evaluation under MCR 2.403 unless the case evaluation award was not unanimous. [2] This rule provides, "The court may, in the interest of justice, refuse to award an attorney fee under this rule." [3] 269 Mich.App. 217 , 711 N.W.2d 84 (2005). [1] 471 Mich. 700 , 691 N.W.2d 753 (2005). 2007Per MCR 2.405(E), costs may not be awarded under the offer of judgment rule in a case that has been submitted to case evaluation under MCR 2.403 unless the case evaluation award was not unanimous. [2] This rule provides, "The court may, in the interest of justice, refuse to award an attorney fee under this rule." [3] 269 Mich.App. 217 , 711 N.W.2d 84 (2005). [1] 471 Mich. 700 , 691 N.W.2d 753 (2005). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hessel v. Hessel
green
2 sentences2007Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion per curiam. 3 The Court first rejected the argument that the offer of judgment rule does not apply to equitable actions, distinguishing Hessel v Hes sel, 168 Mich App 390 ; 424 NW2d 59 (1988), which had held that the rule does not apply to proposed property settlements in divorce actions, which are, of course, equitable. 2007Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed in a published opinion per curiam. 3 The Court first rejected the argument that the offer of judgment rule does not apply to equitable actions, distinguishing Hessel v Hes sel, 168 Mich App 390 ; 424 NW2d 59 (1988), which had held that the rule does not apply to proposed property settlements in divorce actions, which are, of course, equitable. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights
green
2 sentences2005In Haliw v Sterling Hts, 257 Mich App 689, 705-709 ; 669 NW2d 563 (2003), rev’d on other grounds, 471 Mich 700 (2005), this Court interpreted MCR 2.403(O)(ll) by reference to the analogous “interest of justice” exception found in the offer of judgment rule, MCR 2.405(D)(3), because both court rules “serve identical purposes of deterring protracted litigation and encouraging settlement.” 257 Mich App at 706. 2005In Haliw v Sterling Hts, 257 Mich App 689, 705-709 ; 669 NW2d 563 (2003), rev’d on other grounds, 471 Mich 700 (2005), this Court interpreted MCR 2.403(O)(ll) by reference to the analogous “interest of justice” exception found in the offer of judgment rule, MCR 2.405(D)(3), because both court rules “serve identical purposes of deterring protracted litigation and encouraging settlement.” 257 Mich App at 706. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Alken-Ziegler, Inc. v. Waterbury Headers Corp.
green
2 sentences2005The trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s actions constituted “gamesmanship” that was unnecessarily costly to plaintiff, making unjust defendant’s recovery of expenses it elected to create, is not “ ‘so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.’ ” Dep’t of Transportation, supra at 768, quoting Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219, 227 ; 600 NW2d 638 (1999) (citations deleted). 2005The trial court’s conclusion that defendant’s actions constituted “gamesmanship” that was unnecessarily costly to plaintiff, making unjust defendant’s recovery of expenses it elected to create, is not “ ‘so palpably and grossly violative of fact and logic that it evidences not the exercise of will but perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but defiance thereof, not the exercise of reason but rather of passion or bias.’ ” Dep’t of Transportation, supra at 768, quoting Alken-Ziegler, Inc v Waterbury Headers Corp, 461 Mich 219, 227 ; 600 NW2d 638 (1999) (citations deleted). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wilkins v. Gagliardi
green
2 sentences2004MCR 2.405(D)(3); Wilkens v Gagliardi, 219 Mich App 260, 274 ; 556 NW2d 171 (1996). 2004MCR 2.405(D)(3); Wilkens v Gagliardi, 219 Mich App 260, 274 ; 556 NW2d 171 (1996). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Gudewicz v. Matt’s Catering, Inc
green
2 sentences2004Weiss v Hodge (After Remand), 223 Mich App 620, 640 ; 567 NW2d 468 (1997), citing Gudewicz v Matt’s Catering, Inc, 188 Mich App 639, 643 ; 470 NW2d 654 (1991). 2004Weiss v Hodge (After Remand), 223 Mich App 620, 640 ; 567 NW2d 468 (1997), citing Gudewicz v Matt’s Catering, Inc, 188 Mich App 639, 643 ; 470 NW2d 654 (1991). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
J C Building Corp. v. Parkhurst Homes, Inc.
green
2 sentences2004JC Bldg Corp v Parkhurst Homes, Inc, 217 Mich App 421, 426 ; 552 NW2d 466 (1996). 2004JC Bldg Corp v Parkhurst Homes, Inc, 217 Mich App 421, 426 ; 552 NW2d 466 (1996). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Campbell v. Sullins
green
1 sentence2003Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowship (On Remand), 243 Mich.App. 461, 472, 476-477 , 624 N.W.2d 427 (2000). [ Id. 205 n. 9, 667 N.W.2d 887 .] In sum, we conclude that if the trial court finds on the basis of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case and viewed in light of the purposes of MCR 2.403(O) that unusual circumstances exist, it may invoke the "interest of justice" exception found in MCR 2.403(O)(11). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Coy v. Richard’s Industries, Inc
green
1 sentence1993Coy, supra. The offer of judgment rule controls the imposition of attorney fees in this case. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
PARKHURST HOMES, INC v. McLAUGHLIN
green
2 sentences1993In Parkhurst Homes, Inc v McLaughlin, 187 Mich App 357, 365 ; 466 NW2d 404 (1991), this Court determined, through a comparison with the mediation rule, that the court rules did not intend a disposition by motion to be a "verdict” for purposes of awarding costs under the offer of judgment rule. 1993In Parkhurst Homes, Inc v McLaughlin, 187 Mich App 357, 365 ; 466 NW2d 404 (1991), this Court determined, through a comparison with the mediation rule, that the court rules did not intend a disposition by motion to be a "verdict” for purposes of awarding costs under the offer of judgment rule. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Sanders v. Monical MacHinery Co.
green
2 sentences1991Sanders v Monical Machinery Co, 163 Mich App 689, 693 ; 415 NW2d 276 (1987). 1991Sanders v Monical Machinery Co, 163 Mich App 689, 693 ; 415 NW2d 276 (1987). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.