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 1962–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Technical Prof and Officeworkers Assn of Mi v. Daniel Lee Rennergreen1 sentence2024Id. at 304-305, quoting MCL 423.210(2)(a). | 1 | 1 |
Pioneer Savings & Loan Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurancegreen2 sentences1976In Shores v Rabon, 251 NC 790, 796; 112 SE2d 556, 561 (1960), the Supreme Court of North Carolina found ample support for a similar holding: *263 "With respect to the matter of notice of `change of ownership' in a similar factual situation, it was said: `"the proviso that the mortgagee should notify the defendant of any change of ownership which should come to its knowledge evidently has reference only to changes resulting from the acts of the mortgagor or owner of the equity of redemption." The proviso has reference to a change or transfer of title or possession to a third person, not to one 1976In Shores v Rabon, 251 NC 790, 796; 112 SE2d 556, 561 (1960), the Supreme Court of North Carolina found ample support for a similar holding: "With respect to the matter of notice of 'change of ownership’ in a similar factual situation, it was said: ' "the proviso that the mortgagee should notify the defendant of any change of ownership which should come to its knowledge evidently has reference only to changes resulting from the acts of the mortgagor or owner of the equity of redemption.” The proviso has reference to a change or transfer of title or possession to a third person, not to one from | 1 | 1 |
Shores v. Rabongreen2 sentences1976In Shores v Rabon, 251 NC 790, 796; 112 SE2d 556, 561 (1960), the Supreme Court of North Carolina found ample support for a similar holding: *263 "With respect to the matter of notice of `change of ownership' in a similar factual situation, it was said: `"the proviso that the mortgagee should notify the defendant of any change of ownership which should come to its knowledge evidently has reference only to changes resulting from the acts of the mortgagor or owner of the equity of redemption." The proviso has reference to a change or transfer of title or possession to a third person, not to one 1976In Shores v Rabon, 251 NC 790, 796; 112 SE2d 556, 561 (1960), the Supreme Court of North Carolina found ample support for a similar holding: "With respect to the matter of notice of 'change of ownership’ in a similar factual situation, it was said: ' "the proviso that the mortgagee should notify the defendant of any change of ownership which should come to its knowledge evidently has reference only to changes resulting from the acts of the mortgagor or owner of the equity of redemption.” The proviso has reference to a change or transfer of title or possession to a third person, not to one from | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Calhoun Intermediate School District v. Calhoun Intermediate Education Ass'n
green
1 sentence2016Calhoun Intermediate School Dist, 314 Mich App at 46 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp.
green
2 sentences1976In fact, the court in footnote 15 of its opinion, qualified its decision by stating it would not necessarily apply to all suits brought against the union for violation of the duty of fair representation. 12 In summary, we agree with plaintiff that there are two separate claims which comprise plaintiff’s complaint. 13 We further agree with plaintiff that in suits for breach of the duty of fair representation the governing period of limitations is the state statute which most directly applies (International UUAA & AIW v Hoosier Cardinal Corp, 383 US 696, 705 ; 86 S Ct 1107, 1113 ; 16 L Ed 2d 192 1976In fact, the court in footnote 15 of its opinion, qualified its decision by stating it would not necessarily apply to all suits brought against the union for violation of the duty of fair representation. 12 In summary, we agree with plaintiff that there are two separate claims which comprise plaintiff’s complaint. 13 We further agree with plaintiff that in suits for breach of the duty of fair representation the governing period of limitations is the state statute which most directly applies (International UUAA & AIW v Hoosier Cardinal Corp, 383 US 696, 705 ; 86 S Ct 1107, 1113 ; 16 L Ed 2d 192 | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. Ohio Casualty Insurance
green
2 sentences1976We held in the negative, citing 43 Am Jur 2d, Insurance, § 890, p 852, as follows: " 'Under a policy containing a union or standard mortgage clause, the mortgagee’s interest is regarded as separately and independently insured, and his acquisition of title to the insured property is generally regarded as an increase of interest, rather than a change of ownership.’ ” 46 Mich App at 591 ; 208 NW2d at 575 . 1976We held in the negative, citing 43 Am Jur 2d, Insurance, § 890, p 852, as follows: " 'Under a policy containing a union or standard mortgage clause, the mortgagee’s interest is regarded as separately and independently insured, and his acquisition of title to the insured property is generally regarded as an increase of interest, rather than a change of ownership.’ ” 46 Mich App at 591 ; 208 NW2d at 575 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp.
green
2 sentences1962The question was also passed upon by the United States supreme court in United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp. (1953), 347 US 656 ( 74 S Ct 833 , 98 L ed 1025), wherein it was held that a construction corporation might bring an action in a State court against labor organizations for damage based upon tortious conduct, even though the same also, constituted an unfair labor practice. 1962The question was also passed upon by the United States supreme court in United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp. (1953), 347 US 656 ( 74 S Ct 833 , 98 L ed 1025), wherein it was held that a construction corporation might bring an action in a State court against labor organizations for damage based upon tortious conduct, even though the same also, constituted an unfair labor practice. | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.