38 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
L & L Wine & Liquor Corp. v. Liquor Control Commissiongreen2 sentences2017Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an inflexible condition precedent to judicial consideration, however, and will not be required if review of the agency's final decision would not provide an adequate remedy, i.e., if it would run counter to the policies which underlie the doctrine. [Citations omitted; see also L & L Wine, 274 Mich App at 362 ; Citizens for Common Sense, 243 Mich App at 52-53 .] A judicially created exception to the exhaustion requirement arises when an appeal to the administrative agency would be futile. 2017Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an inflexible condition precedent to judicial consideration, however, and will not be required if review of the agency's final decision would not provide an adequate remedy, i.e., if it would run counter to the policies which underlie the doctrine. [Citations omitted; see also L & L Wine, 274 Mich App at 362 ; Citizens for Common Sense, 243 Mich App at 52-53 .] A judicially created exception to the exhaustion requirement arises when an appeal to the administrative agency would be futile. | 3 | 3 |
Yakus v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2003Universal Am-Can [Ltd v. Attorney General, 197 Mich.App. 34, 38 , 494 N.W.2d 787 (1992)]; Jones, supra at 138-139, 460 N.W.2d 575 ; O'Keefe v. Dep't of Social Services, 162 Mich.App. 498, 506 , 413 N.W.2d 32 (1987); see also Hardy v. [Singer,] State Personnel Director, 392 Mich. 1, 5, n. 1 , 219 N.W.2d 61 (1974); accord Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 435 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). 2003Universal Am-Can [Ltd v. Attorney General, 197 Mich.App. 34, 38 , 494 N.W.2d 787 (1992)]; Jones, supra at 138-139, 460 N.W.2d 575 ; O'Keefe v. Dep't of Social Services, 162 Mich.App. 498, 506 , 413 N.W.2d 32 (1987); see also Hardy v. [Singer,] State Personnel Director, 392 Mich. 1, 5, n. 1 , 219 N.W.2d 61 (1974); accord Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 435 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). | 2 | 2 |
TRAVIS JONES v. Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2003Jones v. Dep't of Corrections, 185 Mich.App. 134, 138-139 , 460 N.W.2d 575 (1991 [1990]). 2003Jones v. Dep't of Corrections, 185 Mich.App. 134, 138-139 , 460 N.W.2d 575 (1991 [1990]). | 2 | 2 |
Hardy v. State Personnel Directorgreen2 sentences2003Universal Am-Can [Ltd v. Attorney General, 197 Mich.App. 34, 38 , 494 N.W.2d 787 (1992)]; Jones, supra at 138-139, 460 N.W.2d 575 ; O'Keefe v. Dep't of Social Services, 162 Mich.App. 498, 506 , 413 N.W.2d 32 (1987); see also Hardy v. [Singer,] State Personnel Director, 392 Mich. 1, 5, n. 1 , 219 N.W.2d 61 (1974); accord Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 435 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). 2003Universal Am-Can [Ltd v. Attorney General, 197 Mich.App. 34, 38 , 494 N.W.2d 787 (1992)]; Jones, supra at 138-139, 460 N.W.2d 575 ; O'Keefe v. Dep't of Social Services, 162 Mich.App. 498, 506 , 413 N.W.2d 32 (1987); see also Hardy v. [Singer,] State Personnel Director, 392 Mich. 1, 5, n. 1 , 219 N.W.2d 61 (1974); accord Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 435 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). | 2 | 2 |
Susan R Bruley Trust v. City of Birminghamgreen2 sentences2022Paragon Props Co v Novi, 452 Mich 568, 576 ; 550 NW2d 772 (1996); Bruley, 259 Mich App at 626-628 . [T]he finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; the exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate. [Bruley, 259 Mich App at 628 (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Although an as-appli 2022Paragon Props Co v Novi, 452 Mich 568, 576 ; 550 NW2d 772 (1996); Bruley, 259 Mich App at 626-628 . [T]he finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; the exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate. [Bruley, 259 Mich App at 628 (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Although an as-appli | 1 | 3 |
Universal Am-Can Ltd. v. Attorney Generalgreen2 sentences2005Thus, plaintiffs’ pursuits of administrative remedies before the commissioner “would have been futile” and “the exhaustion doctrine does not apply.” Id. at 38 . 1995Also, the strong statements that initially seem to eliminate the exhaustion requirement when a constitutional violation has been alleged are found in cases where either the alleged violation was the controlling issue in the case, Universal Am-Can Ltd v Attorney General, 197 Mich App 34, 37 ; 494 NW2d 787 (1992); Khan v Jackson Prison Warden, 128 Mich App 224, 227 ; 340 NW2d 77 (1983), or where the plaintiff had sought to enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional statute. | 1 | 3 |
Vaca v. Sipesgreen2 sentences1983Vaca, supra, pp 183-187 . 1970Only in those situations in which the union has in good faith made an adjustment of the grievance, see Cortez v. Ford Motor Co., supra, at 120, or is satisfied that the grievance lacks merit, see Vaca v. Sipes, supra, at 193 ( 87 S Ct at 918 , 17 L Ed 2d at 859, 860 ), is application of the doctrine of exhaustion sound. | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Bockgreen2 sentences2026See Jones v Bock, 549 US 199, 219 ; 127 S Ct 910 ; 166 L Ed 2d 798 (2007); Porter v Nussle, 534 US 516, 524-525 ; 122 S Ct 983 ; 152 L Ed 2d 12 (2002). 2026See Jones v Bock, 549 US 199, 219 ; 127 S Ct 910 ; 166 L Ed 2d 798 (2007); Porter v Nussle, 534 US 516, 524-525 ; 122 S Ct 983 ; 152 L Ed 2d 12 (2002). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. Myersgreen1 sentence2022See Anderson, 268 Mich App at 715 . 3 The trial court’s order dismissing Wilcox’s complaint stated that the lawsuit constituted a civil action as defined by MCL 600.5531(a), but did not specify which portion of the definition applied. | 1 | 1 |
Huggett v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen1 sentence2007Cf. Huggett, supra at 191-193 (excepting from the exhaustion requirement a claim “that the Legislature exempted the proposed activity from [the] defendant’s regulation”). | 1 | 1 |
Reiter v. Coopergreen2 sentences2001See also Davis, Administrative Law (3d ed), § 19.01, p 373, stating that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction “merges with the exhaustion doctrine.” 14 Talmadge, supra at 715, n 65. 15 See also Reiter v Cooper, 507 US 258, 268-270, n 3 ; 113 S Ct 1213 ; 122 L Ed 2d 604 (1993), discussing the primary jurisdiction doctrine and the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. 16 MCL 460.6 now provides: The public service commission is vested with complete power and jurisdiction to regulate all public utilities in the state .... 2001See also Davis, Administrative Law (3d ed), § 19.01, p 373, stating that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction “merges with the exhaustion doctrine.” 14 Talmadge, supra at 715, n 65. 15 See also Reiter v Cooper, 507 US 258, 268-270, n 3 ; 113 S Ct 1213 ; 122 L Ed 2d 604 (1993), discussing the primary jurisdiction doctrine and the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine. 16 MCL 460.6 now provides: The public service commission is vested with complete power and jurisdiction to regulate all public utilities in the state .... | 1 | 1 |
| American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. Highland Park Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Compton Sand & Gravel Co v. Dryden Townshipgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chiotte v. Chiottegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ripperger v. A. C. Allyn & Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Myers Motors, Inc. v. Kaiser-Frazer Sales Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Manor House Apartments v. City of Warren
green
2 sentences2008See L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 358-359 ; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (recognizing an exception to the exhaustion requirement where exhaustion before the administrative agency would be futile); Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 , 10 n 2; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) (rejecting the insurer’s claim that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile); Susan R Bruley Trust v Birmingham, 259 Mich App 619, 627 ; 675 NW2d 910 (2003) (holding that litigants will not be made to pursue an administrative p 2008See L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 358-359 ; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (recognizing an exception to the exhaustion requirement where exhaustion before the administrative agency would be futile); Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 , 10 n 2; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) (rejecting the insurer’s claim that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile); Susan R Bruley Trust v Birmingham, 259 Mich App 619, 627 ; 675 NW2d 910 (2003) (holding that litigants will not be made to pursue an administrative p | 4 | 1996–2021 |
Judges of the 74th Judicial District v. Bay County
green
2 sentences2024From this, and other considerations, “emanates the doctrine of exhaustion, by which the courts have declined to act in contravention of administrative agencies where the remedies available through administrative channels have not been pursued to completion.” Id. at 728 . 2000From this, and other considerations, “emanates the doctrine of exhaustion, by which courts have declined to act in contravention of administrative agencies where the remedies available through administrative channels have not been pursued to completion.” Id. at 728 . | 3 | 1995–2024 |
Michigan Supervisors Union OPEIU Local 512 v. Department of Civil Service
green
2 sentences2023If there are factual issues for the agency to resolve, the presence of a constitutional issue, or the presence of an argument couched in constitutional terms, does not excuse the exhaustion requirement even if the administrative agency would not be able to provide all the relief requested. [Mich Supervisors Union OPEIU Local 512 v State of Michigan, 209 Mich App 573, 578 ; 531 NW2d 790 (citations omitted).] Constitutional issues not within the administrative agency’s jurisdiction can be raised in the circuit court through the review procedure in the APA; no separate action is contemplated or a 2023If there are factual issues for the agency to resolve, the presence of a constitutional issue, or the presence of an argument couched in constitutional terms, does not excuse the exhaustion requirement even if the administrative agency would not be able to provide all the relief requested. [Mich Supervisors Union OPEIU Local 512 v State of Michigan, 209 Mich App 573, 578 ; 531 NW2d 790 (citations omitted).] Constitutional issues not within the administrative agency’s jurisdiction can be raised in the circuit court through the review procedure in the APA; no separate action is contemplated or a | 3 | 2003–2023 |
Citizens for Common Sense in Government v. Attorney General
green
2 sentences2017Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an inflexible condition precedent to judicial consideration, however, and will not be required if review of the agency's final decision would not provide an adequate remedy, i.e., if it would run counter to the policies which underlie the doctrine. [Citations omitted; see also L & L Wine, 274 Mich App at 362 ; Citizens for Common Sense, 243 Mich App at 52-53 .] A judicially created exception to the exhaustion requirement arises when an appeal to the administrative agency would be futile. 2017Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not an inflexible condition precedent to judicial consideration, however, and will not be required if review of the agency's final decision would not provide an adequate remedy, i.e., if it would run counter to the policies which underlie the doctrine. [Citations omitted; see also L & L Wine, 274 Mich App at 362 ; Citizens for Common Sense, 243 Mich App at 52-53 .] A judicially created exception to the exhaustion requirement arises when an appeal to the administrative agency would be futile. | 3 | 2008–2017 |
O'Keefe v. Department of Social Services
green
2 sentences2003Universal Am-Can [Ltd v. Attorney General, 197 Mich.App. 34, 38 , 494 N.W.2d 787 (1992)]; Jones, supra at 138-139, 460 N.W.2d 575 ; O'Keefe v. Dep't of Social Services, 162 Mich.App. 498, 506 , 413 N.W.2d 32 (1987); see also Hardy v. [Singer,] State Personnel Director, 392 Mich. 1, 5, n. 1 , 219 N.W.2d 61 (1974); accord Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 435 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). 2003Universal Am-Can [Ltd v. Attorney General, 197 Mich.App. 34, 38 , 494 N.W.2d 787 (1992)]; Jones, supra at 138-139, 460 N.W.2d 575 ; O'Keefe v. Dep't of Social Services, 162 Mich.App. 498, 506 , 413 N.W.2d 32 (1987); see also Hardy v. [Singer,] State Personnel Director, 392 Mich. 1, 5, n. 1 , 219 N.W.2d 61 (1974); accord Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 435 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). | 3 | 1990–2003 |
Paragon Properties Co. v. City of Novi
green
2 sentences2022Paragon Props Co v Novi, 452 Mich 568, 576 ; 550 NW2d 772 (1996); Bruley, 259 Mich App at 626-628 . [T]he finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; the exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate. [Bruley, 259 Mich App at 628 (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Although an as-appli 2022Paragon Props Co v Novi, 452 Mich 568, 576 ; 550 NW2d 772 (1996); Bruley, 259 Mich App at 626-628 . [T]he finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decisionmaker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury; the exhaustion requirement generally refers to administrative and judicial procedures by which an injured party may seek review of an adverse decision and obtain a remedy if the decision is found to be unlawful or otherwise inappropriate. [Bruley, 259 Mich App at 628 (quotation marks and citation omitted).] Although an as-appli | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Turner v. Lansing Township
green
2 sentences2008See L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 358-359 ; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (recognizing an exception to the exhaustion requirement where exhaustion before the administrative agency would be futile); Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 , 10 n 2; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) (rejecting the insurer’s claim that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile); Susan R Bruley Trust v Birmingham, 259 Mich App 619, 627 ; 675 NW2d 910 (2003) (holding that litigants will not be made to pursue an administrative p 2008See L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 358-359 ; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (recognizing an exception to the exhaustion requirement where exhaustion before the administrative agency would be futile); Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 , 10 n 2; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) (rejecting the insurer’s claim that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile); Susan R Bruley Trust v Birmingham, 259 Mich App 619, 627 ; 675 NW2d 910 (2003) (holding that litigants will not be made to pursue an administrative p | 2 | 1994–2008 |
Welfare Employees Union v. Civil Service Commission
green
2 sentences1987Welfare Employees Union v Civil Service Comm, 28 Mich App 343 ; 184 NW2d 247 (1970). 1987Welfare Employees Union v Civil Service Comm, 28 Mich App 343 ; 184 NW2d 247 (1970). | 2 | 1980–1987 |
Diggs v. State Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors
green
2 sentences1981The two generally recognized exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are where a constitutional issue is raised which the administrative agency has no power to adjudicate, Diggs v State Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors, 321 Mich 508 ; 32 NW2d 728 (1948), and where the available administrative remedy is inadequate so that requiring exhaustion would be a futile gesture, Schwall v City of Dearborn, 31 Mich App 169 ; 187 NW2d 543 (1971). 1981The two generally recognized exceptions to the exhaustion requirement are where a constitutional issue is raised which the administrative agency has no power to adjudicate, Diggs v State Board of Embalmers & Funeral Directors, 321 Mich 508 ; 32 NW2d 728 (1948), and where the available administrative remedy is inadequate so that requiring exhaustion would be a futile gesture, Schwall v City of Dearborn, 31 Mich App 169 ; 187 NW2d 543 (1971). | 2 | 1980–1981 |
Porter v. Nussle
green
2 sentences2026See Jones v Bock, 549 US 199, 219 ; 127 S Ct 910 ; 166 L Ed 2d 798 (2007); Porter v Nussle, 534 US 516, 524-525 ; 122 S Ct 983 ; 152 L Ed 2d 12 (2002). 2026See Jones v Bock, 549 US 199, 219 ; 127 S Ct 910 ; 166 L Ed 2d 798 (2007); Porter v Nussle, 534 US 516, 524-525 ; 122 S Ct 983 ; 152 L Ed 2d 12 (2002). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Pompey v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2024Michigan’s general rule of exhausting administrative remedies is premised on the idea that “where a new right is created or a new duty is imposed by statute, the remedy provided for enforcement of that right by the statute for its violation and nonperformance is exclusive.” Pompey v Gen Motors Corp, 385 Mich 537, 552 ; 189 NW2d 243 (1971). 2024Michigan’s general rule of exhausting administrative remedies is premised on the idea that “where a new right is created or a new duty is imposed by statute, the remedy provided for enforcement of that right by the statute for its violation and nonperformance is exclusive.” Pompey v Gen Motors Corp, 385 Mich 537, 552 ; 189 NW2d 243 (1971). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Harper
green
2 sentences2021“As this Court has repeatedly recognized, when an administrative scheme of relief exists an individual must exhaust those remedies before a circuit court has jurisdiction.” In re Harper, 302 Mich App 349, 356 ; 839 NW2d 44 (2013). 2021“As this Court has repeatedly recognized, when an administrative scheme of relief exists an individual must exhaust those remedies before a circuit court has jurisdiction.” In re Harper, 302 Mich App 349, 356 ; 839 NW2d 44 (2013). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
American Nat. Ins. Co. v. FDIC
green
1 sentence2021A claimant cannot circumvent the exhaustion requirement by suing the purchasing bank based on the conduct of the 9 Indeed, as explained by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the term “claim” in the FIRREA is “a term-of-art that encompasses only demands that are resolvable through the administrative process set out by FIRREA.” American Nat’l Ins Co, 642 F3d at 1142 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Genesis Center, PLC v. Commissioner of Financial & Insurance Services
green
2 sentences2020The exhaustion requirement serves several purposes: “(1) an untimely resort to the courts may result in delay and disruption of an administrative scheme; (2) any type of appellate review is best made after the agency has developed a full record; (3) resolution of the issues may require the technical competence of the agency, and (4) the administrative agency’s settlement of the dispute may render a judicial resolution unnecessary.” Genesis Ctr PLC v Fin & Ins Serv Comm’r, 246 Mich App 531, 543 ; 633 NW2d 834 (2001). 2020The exhaustion requirement serves several purposes: “(1) an untimely resort to the courts may result in delay and disruption of an administrative scheme; (2) any type of appellate review is best made after the agency has developed a full record; (3) resolution of the issues may require the technical competence of the agency, and (4) the administrative agency’s settlement of the dispute may render a judicial resolution unnecessary.” Genesis Ctr PLC v Fin & Ins Serv Comm’r, 246 Mich App 531, 543 ; 633 NW2d 834 (2001). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Blair v. Checker Cab Co.
green
2 sentences2020Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required, however, “before filing a claim based on a constitutional issue.” Blair v Checker Cab Co, 219 Mich App 667, 671 ; 558 NW2d 439 (1996). 2020Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required, however, “before filing a claim based on a constitutional issue.” Blair v Checker Cab Co, 219 Mich App 667, 671 ; 558 NW2d 439 (1996). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Travelers Insurance v. Detroit Edison Co.
green
1 sentence2016THE DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION “The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is grounded in the principle of separation of powers” and “has been compared to the political question doctrine and the exhaustion doctrine, both of which are also concepts rooted in separation of powers principles.” Travelers Ins, 465 Mich at 196 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Nalbandian v. Progressive Michigan Insurance
green
2 sentences2008See L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 358-359 ; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (recognizing an exception to the exhaustion requirement where exhaustion before the administrative agency would be futile); Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 , 10 n 2; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) (rejecting the insurer’s claim that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile); Susan R Bruley Trust v Birmingham, 259 Mich App 619, 627 ; 675 NW2d 910 (2003) (holding that litigants will not be made to pursue an administrative p 2008See L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 358-359 ; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (recognizing an exception to the exhaustion requirement where exhaustion before the administrative agency would be futile); Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 , 10 n 2; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) (rejecting the insurer’s claim that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile); Susan R Bruley Trust v Birmingham, 259 Mich App 619, 627 ; 675 NW2d 910 (2003) (holding that litigants will not be made to pursue an administrative p | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Sterling Secret Service, Inc. v. Department of State Police
green
2 sentences2008See L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 358-359 ; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (recognizing an exception to the exhaustion requirement where exhaustion before the administrative agency would be futile); Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 , 10 n 2; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) (rejecting the insurer’s claim that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile); Susan R Bruley Trust v Birmingham, 259 Mich App 619, 627 ; 675 NW2d 910 (2003) (holding that litigants will not be made to pursue an administrative p 2008See L & L Wine & Liquor Corp v Liquor Control Comm, 274 Mich App 354, 358-359 ; 733 NW2d 107 (2007) (recognizing an exception to the exhaustion requirement where exhaustion before the administrative agency would be futile); Nalbandian v Progressive Michigan Ins Co, 267 Mich App 7 , 10 n 2; 703 NW2d 474 (2005) (rejecting the insurer’s claim that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies because to do so would have been futile); Susan R Bruley Trust v Birmingham, 259 Mich App 619, 627 ; 675 NW2d 910 (2003) (holding that litigants will not be made to pursue an administrative p | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Warth v. Seldin red | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Allen v. Wright
red
2 sentences2001PURPOSE OF THE DOCTRINE The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is grounded in the principle of separation of powers. 12 The doctrine has been compared to the political question doctrine and the exhaustion doctrine, both of which are also concepts rooted in separation of powers principles. 13 “All of the doctrines that cluster about Article IH—not only standing but mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like—relate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prude 2001PURPOSE OF THE DOCTRINE The doctrine of primary jurisdiction is grounded in the principle of separation of powers. 12 The doctrine has been compared to the political question doctrine and the exhaustion doctrine, both of which are also concepts rooted in separation of powers principles. 13 “All of the doctrines that cluster about Article IH—not only standing but mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like—relate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prude | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| International Business MacHines Corp. v. Department of Treasury green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| The Toilet Goods Association, Inc. v. John w.ga Rdner, Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| People ex rel. Sutherland v. Governor green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner red | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Smigel v. Southgate Community School District green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Murray v. Carrier green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Khan v. Jackson Prison Warden green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Dickerson v. Warden green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Glover v. St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. green | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Schwall v. City of Dearborn neutral | 1 | 1981–1981 |
| Baker v. City of Detroit green | 1 | 1979–1979 |
| Barry v. Flint Fire Department green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Leadon v. Detroit Lumber Company green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.