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.
6 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2018–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Home-Owners Ins. Co. v. Andriacchigreen2 sentences2026If it fails to do so, we must vacate the sanctions order and “remand for appropriate findings” even if frivolity is “fairly apparent from the record.” Home-Owners Ins Co v Andriacchi, 320 Mich App 52 , 79; 903 NW2d 197 (2017). 2026If it fails to do so, we must vacate the sanctions order and “remand for appropriate findings” even if frivolity is “fairly apparent from the record.” Home-Owners Ins Co v Andriacchi, 320 Mich App 52 , 79; 903 NW2d 197 (2017). | 2 | 3 |
Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v. Bach Services & Manufacturinggreen2 sentences2026But that deference does not insulate a trial court’s perspective from review: “A trial court must articulate a sufficiently clear basis for its decision to allow this Court to review the finding for clear error.” Id. 2025A trial court must articulate a sufficiently clear basis for its decision to allow this Court to review the finding for clear error. [Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co, 347 Mich App at 321 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] With regard to the trial court’s finding that Davis’s claim lacked legal merit, the trial court considered her claim of defamation, which requires proof of the following elements: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In re VanDalen
green
2 sentences2018VanDalen, 293 Mich App at 139 . 2018VanDalen, 293 Mich App at 139 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Smith v. Anonymous Joint Enterprise
green
2 sentences2025A trial court must articulate a sufficiently clear basis for its decision to allow this Court to review the finding for clear error. [Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co, 347 Mich App at 321 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] With regard to the trial court’s finding that Davis’s claim lacked legal merit, the trial court considered her claim of defamation, which requires proof of the following elements: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and 2025A trial court must articulate a sufficiently clear basis for its decision to allow this Court to review the finding for clear error. [Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co, 347 Mich App at 321 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] With regard to the trial court’s finding that Davis’s claim lacked legal merit, the trial court considered her claim of defamation, which requires proof of the following elements: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mitan v. Campbell
green
2 sentences2025A trial court must articulate a sufficiently clear basis for its decision to allow this Court to review the finding for clear error. [Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co, 347 Mich App at 321 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] With regard to the trial court’s finding that Davis’s claim lacked legal merit, the trial court considered her claim of defamation, which requires proof of the following elements: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and 2025A trial court must articulate a sufficiently clear basis for its decision to allow this Court to review the finding for clear error. [Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co, 347 Mich App at 321 (quotation marks and citations omitted).] With regard to the trial court’s finding that Davis’s claim lacked legal merit, the trial court considered her claim of defamation, which requires proof of the following elements: (1) a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff, (2) an unprivileged communication to a third party, (3) fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, and | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.