authorities rule (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

authorities rule in Michigan

6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1864–2006 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.

Followed or applied (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Miranda v. Arizonagreen
scotus · 1966 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1970–1982
2 sentences

1982"Whatever the testimony of the authorities as to waiver of rights by an accused, the fact of lengthy interrogation or incommunicado incarceration before a statement is made is strong evidence that the accused did not validly waive his rights.” Miranda , 476.

1970That matter is discussed in a later portion of the opinion beginning at p 473 ( 86 S Ct at p 1627 ; 16 L Ed 2d at p 723 ; 10 ALR3d at p 1011) with the language “Once-warnings have been given, the subsequent procedure is clear.” To construe the Miranda opinion as requiring a specific statement that the accused waives his specific constitutional rights would be inconsistent with the language from Miranda at p 476 ( 86 S Ct at p 1629 ; 16 L Ed 2d at pp 724, 725; 10 ALR3d at p 1012): “Whatever the testimony of the authorities as to waiver of rights by an accused, the fact of lengthy interrogation

12

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (9)

CaseCitedYears
Meeker v. City of East Orange green
nj · 1909
2 sentences

2006The Court then adopted the "rule of reasonable user" for the reasons stated by the court in Meeker v. City of East Orange, 77 N.J.L. 623, 636-639 , 74 A. 379 (1909).

2006The Court then adopted the "rule of reasonable user" for the reasons stated by the court in Meeker v. City of East Orange, 77 N.J.L. 623, 636-639 , 74 A. 379 (1909).

12006–2006
Schenk v. City of Ann Arbor green
mich · 1917
2 sentences

2006The Court then recited the rule of absolute ownership and the authorities for that rule, stating, "While this is the rule applied, and to be applied, in respect to most of the ordinary uses of land, and the ordinary operations carried on upon and in land, there is other doctrine, apparently, but not strictly, a modification of the early common-law doctrine referred to, which is sometimes called the doctrine of reasonable user, and which was introduced by equity to the law." Id. at 82 , 163 N.W. 109 .

2006The Court then recited the rule of absolute ownership and the authorities for that rule, stating, “While this is the rule applied, and to be applied, in respect to most of the ordinary uses of land, and the ordinary operations carried on upon and in land, there is other doctrine, apparently, but not strictly, a modification of the early common-law doctrine referred to, which is sometimes called the doctrine of reasonable user, and which was introduced by equity to the law.” Id. at 82 .

12006–2006
Rickard v. Bridgeman-Russell Co. neutral
mich · 1939
1 sentence

1940This was sufficient.” See, also, Rickard v. Bridgeman-Russell Co., 288 Mich. 175 , where the authorities for this principle are fully collected.

11940–1940
Fonda v. Van Horne green
nysupct · 1836
1 sentence

1877Dutch, 14 Mass., 457, 460 ; Lawrence’s Lessee v. McArter, 10 Ohio, 37; Fonda v. Van Horne, 15 Wend., 631, 635 ; Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind., 195 ; Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 Ill., 158 ; Knox v. Flack, 22 Penn.

11877–1877
Cole v. Pennoyer neutral
ill · 1852
1 sentence

1877Dutch, 14 Mass., 457, 460 ; Lawrence’s Lessee v. McArter, 10 Ohio, 37; Fonda v. Van Horne, 15 Wend., 631, 635 ; Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind., 195 ; Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 Ill., 158 ; Knox v. Flack, 22 Penn.

11877–1877
Trueblood v. Trueblood green
ind · 1856
1 sentence

1877Dutch, 14 Mass., 457, 460 ; Lawrence’s Lessee v. McArter, 10 Ohio, 37; Fonda v. Van Horne, 15 Wend., 631, 635 ; Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind., 195 ; Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 Ill., 158 ; Knox v. Flack, 22 Penn.

11877–1877
Whitney v. Dutch green
mass · 1817
1 sentence

1877Dutch, 14 Mass., 457, 460 ; Lawrence’s Lessee v. McArter, 10 Ohio, 37; Fonda v. Van Horne, 15 Wend., 631, 635 ; Trueblood v. Trueblood, 8 Ind., 195 ; Cole v. Pennoyer, 14 Ill., 158 ; Knox v. Flack, 22 Penn.

11877–1877
Arbuckle v. Hawks green
vt · 1848
1 sentence

1864See Coon v. Reed, 1 Hilton, 511; Porter v. Vaughn, 26 Vt. 624 ; Arbuckle v. Hawks, 20 Vt. 538 .

11864–1864
Porter v. Vaughn neutral
vt · 1854
1 sentence

1864See Coon v. Reed, 1 Hilton, 511; Porter v. Vaughn, 26 Vt. 624 ; Arbuckle v. Hawks, 20 Vt. 538 .

11864–1864

Where else courts name it

TX 32 (1895–2015) NY 30 (1882–2004) CA 29 (1912–2021) MO 19 (1894–1967) IL 17 (1874–2021) AL 13 (1858–2011) PA 13 (1867–2003) FL 10 (1891–2023) IN 9 (1876–1971) WI 8 (1864–2005) OK 8 (1912–2023) KS 8 (1899–1997) GA 7 (1899–1978) VA 7 (1914–1983) OR 6 (1882–1933) MS 6 (1870–2014) KY 6 (1910–1939) MT 6 (1925–2009) MI 6 (1864–2006) AR 5 (1894–1942) ID 5 (1925–2011) WA 5 (1894–2012) TN 5 (1914–2017) MD 4 (1928–2014) NC 4 (1929–1963) MN 4 (1895–1950) WV 4 (1923–2014) IA 3 (1904–1962) UT 3 (1911–1922) MA 3 (1980–2009) NJ 3 (1956–1964) LA 3 (1942–1984) SD 3 (1903–1928) NM 3 (1896–1944) CT 2 (1933–1950) AZ 2 (1931–1953) NE 2 (1910–1934) ME 2 (1947–1952) WY 2 (1908–1938) NV 2 (1895–1932) OH 2 (1925–1992) SC 2 (1970–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check