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.
32 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1920–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Opdyke Investment v. NORRIS GRAIN COMPANYgreen2 sentences2023See Opdyke Investment Co v Norris Grain Co, 413 Mich 354, 365 ; 320 NW2d 836 (1982) (stating that “[t]he doctrine of ‘part performance’ satisfying the statute is as old as the statute itself”). 2023See Opdyke Investment Co v Norris Grain Co, 413 Mich 354, 365 ; 320 NW2d 836 (1982) (stating that “[t]he doctrine of ‘part performance’ satisfying the statute is as old as the statute itself”). | 2 | 2 |
Guzorek v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2023“The doctrine of partial performance applies primarily in actions involving land,” Barclae v Zarb, 300 Mich App 455 , 475 n 3; 834 NW2d 100 (2013), and provides as follows: “If one party to an oral contract, in reliance upon the contract, has performed his obligation thereunder so that it would be a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract, by interposing the statute, equity will regard the contract as removed from the operation of the statute.” [Dumas v Auto Club Ass’n, 437 Mich 521, 540 ; 473 NW2d 652 (1991), quoting Guzorek v Williams, 300 Mich 633, 638-639 ; 2 NW2d 2023“The doctrine of partial performance applies primarily in actions involving land,” Barclae v Zarb, 300 Mich App 455 , 475 n 3; 834 NW2d 100 (2013), and provides as follows: “If one party to an oral contract, in reliance upon the contract, has performed his obligation thereunder so that it would be a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract, by interposing the statute, equity will regard the contract as removed from the operation of the statute.” [Dumas v Auto Club Ass’n, 437 Mich 521, 540 ; 473 NW2d 652 (1991), quoting Guzorek v Williams, 300 Mich 633, 638-639 ; 2 NW2d | 1 | 4 |
Halsell v. Renfrowgreen2 sentences2023This was premature, however, because if Holmes and defendant never had a contract in which Holmes agreed to sell the property to defendant, then there was no agreement for defendant to partially perform.2 See, e.g., Halsell v Renfrow, 202 US 287, 294 ; 26 S Ct 610 ; 50 L Ed 1032 (1906) (“As there was no agreement at the last stage, there can have been no part performance then.”). 2023This was premature, however, because if Holmes and defendant never had a contract in which Holmes agreed to sell the property to defendant, then there was no agreement for defendant to partially perform.2 See, e.g., Halsell v Renfrow, 202 US 287, 294 ; 26 S Ct 610 ; 50 L Ed 1032 (1906) (“As there was no agreement at the last stage, there can have been no part performance then.”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tohomgreen2 sentences2018We note, however, that defense counsel did object to the use of the support dog as quoted earlier. 4 MCL 750.145m(u)(i). 5 MCL 400.11(f) (defining ''vulnerable''); see also MCL 400.11(b) (defining ''adult in need of protective services'' or ''adult'' as a ''vulnerable person''). 6 By way of example, the very first line from a passage Johnson quoted from People v. Tohom , 109 A.D. 3d 253 , 272-273, 969 N.Y.S.2d 123 (2013) reads, " 'In fact, permitting a comfort dog to accompany a child victim to the stand can be considered less prejudicial than allowing ''support persons.'' ' " Johnson , 315 Mi 2018We note, however, that defense counsel did object to the use of the support dog as quoted earlier. 4 MCL 750.145m(u)(i). 5 MCL 400.11(f) (defining ''vulnerable''); see also MCL 400.11(b) (defining ''adult in need of protective services'' or ''adult'' as a ''vulnerable person''). 6 By way of example, the very first line from a passage Johnson quoted from People v. Tohom , 109 A.D. 3d 253 , 272-273, 969 N.Y.S.2d 123 (2013) reads, " 'In fact, permitting a comfort dog to accompany a child victim to the stand can be considered less prejudicial than allowing ''support persons.'' ' " Johnson , 315 Mi | 1 | 1 |
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2018We note, however, that defense counsel did object to the use of the support dog as quoted earlier. 4 MCL 750.145m(u)(i). 5 MCL 400.11(f) (defining ''vulnerable''); see also MCL 400.11(b) (defining ''adult in need of protective services'' or ''adult'' as a ''vulnerable person''). 6 By way of example, the very first line from a passage Johnson quoted from People v. Tohom , 109 A.D. 3d 253 , 272-273, 969 N.Y.S.2d 123 (2013) reads, " 'In fact, permitting a comfort dog to accompany a child victim to the stand can be considered less prejudicial than allowing ''support persons.'' ' " Johnson , 315 Mi 2018We note, however, that defense counsel did object to the use of the support dog as quoted earlier. 4 MCL 750.145m(u)(i). 5 MCL 400.11(f) (defining ''vulnerable''); see also MCL 400.11(b) (defining ''adult in need of protective services'' or ''adult'' as a ''vulnerable person''). 6 By way of example, the very first line from a passage Johnson quoted from People v. Tohom , 109 A.D. 3d 253 , 272-273, 969 N.Y.S.2d 123 (2013) reads, " 'In fact, permitting a comfort dog to accompany a child victim to the stand can be considered less prejudicial than allowing ''support persons.'' ' " Johnson , 315 Mi | 1 | 1 |
P & M CONST. CO., INC. v. Hammond Ventures, Inc.green2 sentences2015Notably, “Michigan follows the substantial performance rule,” P & M Constr Co v Hammond Ventures, Inc, 3 Mich App 306, 315 ; 142 NW2d 468, 473 (1966), which, when dealing with construction contracts, generally involves a finding of fact: 1 A motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a plaintiff’s claim. 2015Notably, “Michigan follows the substantial performance rule,” P & M Constr Co v Hammond Ventures, Inc, 3 Mich App 306, 315 ; 142 NW2d 468, 473 (1966), which, when dealing with construction contracts, generally involves a finding of fact: 1 A motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual support of a plaintiff’s claim. | 1 | 1 |
Michigan Crown Fender Co. v. Welchgreen2 sentences1987And it matters not whether such profit or advantage be the result of the performance or of the violation of the duty of the agent if it be the fruit of the agency.” Where the agent is also an officer of a corporation for which he is acting there is added reason for rigidly adhering to the rule. [Michigan Crown Fender Co v Welch, 211 Mich 148, 159, 160 ; 178 NW 684 (1920).] The Supreme Court has also quoted from Me-chem’s Outlines of Agency (1901 ed), § 148, stating: "Except with the full knowledge and consent of his principal, an agent authorized to buy for his principal cannot buy of himself; 1987And it matters not whether such profit or advantage be the result of the performance or of the violation of the duty of the agent if it be the fruit of the agency.” Where the agent is also an officer of a corporation for which he is acting there is added reason for rigidly adhering to the rule. [Michigan Crown Fender Co v Welch, 211 Mich 148, 159, 160 ; 178 NW 684 (1920).] The Supreme Court has also quoted from Me-chem’s Outlines of Agency (1901 ed), § 148, stating: "Except with the full knowledge and consent of his principal, an agent authorized to buy for his principal cannot buy of himself; | 1 | 1 |
Whipple v. Parkergreen1 sentence1984Whipple v Parker, 29 Mich 369, 374-375 (1874); Schipani v Ford Motor Co, supra, p 612; McMath v Ford Motor Co, supra, p 725. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
green
2 sentences2023“The doctrine of partial performance applies primarily in actions involving land,” Barclae v Zarb, 300 Mich App 455 , 475 n 3; 834 NW2d 100 (2013), and provides as follows: “If one party to an oral contract, in reliance upon the contract, has performed his obligation thereunder so that it would be a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract, by interposing the statute, equity will regard the contract as removed from the operation of the statute.” [Dumas v Auto Club Ass’n, 437 Mich 521, 540 ; 473 NW2d 652 (1991), quoting Guzorek v Williams, 300 Mich 633, 638-639 ; 2 NW2d 2023“The doctrine of partial performance applies primarily in actions involving land,” Barclae v Zarb, 300 Mich App 455 , 475 n 3; 834 NW2d 100 (2013), and provides as follows: “If one party to an oral contract, in reliance upon the contract, has performed his obligation thereunder so that it would be a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract, by interposing the statute, equity will regard the contract as removed from the operation of the statute.” [Dumas v Auto Club Ass’n, 437 Mich 521, 540 ; 473 NW2d 652 (1991), quoting Guzorek v Williams, 300 Mich 633, 638-639 ; 2 NW2d | 5 | 2016–2023 |
Barclae v. Zarb
green
2 sentences2023“The doctrine of partial performance applies primarily in actions involving land,” Barclae v Zarb, 300 Mich App 455 , 475 n 3; 834 NW2d 100 (2013), and provides as follows: “If one party to an oral contract, in reliance upon the contract, has performed his obligation thereunder so that it would be a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract, by interposing the statute, equity will regard the contract as removed from the operation of the statute.” [Dumas v Auto Club Ass’n, 437 Mich 521, 540 ; 473 NW2d 652 (1991), quoting Guzorek v Williams, 300 Mich 633, 638-639 ; 2 NW2d 2023“The doctrine of partial performance applies primarily in actions involving land,” Barclae v Zarb, 300 Mich App 455 , 475 n 3; 834 NW2d 100 (2013), and provides as follows: “If one party to an oral contract, in reliance upon the contract, has performed his obligation thereunder so that it would be a fraud upon him to allow the other party to repudiate the contract, by interposing the statute, equity will regard the contract as removed from the operation of the statute.” [Dumas v Auto Club Ass’n, 437 Mich 521, 540 ; 473 NW2d 652 (1991), quoting Guzorek v Williams, 300 Mich 633, 638-639 ; 2 NW2d | 2 | 2023–2025 |
Rodgers v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank Na
green
2 sentences2018More recently, a panel of this Court, in Rodgers v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 315 Mich App 301, 310 ; 890 NW2d 381 (2016), specifically stated that the doctrine of substantial performance “is inapplicable to the fulfillment of express conditions.” Id. at 310 . 2018More recently, a panel of this Court, in Rodgers v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 315 Mich App 301, 310 ; 890 NW2d 381 (2016), specifically stated that the doctrine of substantial performance “is inapplicable to the fulfillment of express conditions.” Id. at 310 . | 2 | 2018–2024 |
People v. Orlewicz
green
2 sentences2017In the criminal context, a defendant may obtain relief from a conviction if the performance of defense counsel “was so objectively deficient that counsel was not performing as the attorney guaranteed by the constitution.” People v Orlewicz, 293 Mich App 96, 107-108 ; 809 NW2d 194 (2011). 2017In the criminal context, a defendant may obtain relief from a conviction if the performance of defense counsel “was so objectively deficient that counsel was not performing as the attorney guaranteed by the constitution.” People v Orlewicz, 293 Mich App 96, 107-108 ; 809 NW2d 194 (2011). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
People v. Trakhtenberg
green
2 sentences2017The relationship between a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to liberty, and the concept of ineffective assistance as grounds for relief in a criminal case, is reflected in our Supreme Court’s decision in People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012). 2017The relationship between a criminal defendant’s constitutional right to liberty, and the concept of ineffective assistance as grounds for relief in a criminal case, is reflected in our Supreme Court’s decision in People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38 ; 826 NW2d 136 (2012). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences1986"In Strickland v Washington, [ 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984)], the United States Supreme Court held that when a convicted defendant claims under the Sixth Amendment that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal, he must establish the following: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient, a performance inquiry to determine whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances; and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, that there is a reasonable probability that, absent the error, the factfinder would have ha 1986"In Strickland v Washington, [ 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984)], the United States Supreme Court held that when a convicted defendant claims under the Sixth Amendment that counsel’s assistance was so defective as to require reversal, he must establish the following: (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient, a performance inquiry to determine whether counsel’s assistance was reasonable considering all the circumstances; and (2) that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense, that there is a reasonable probability that, absent the error, the factfinder would have ha | 2 | 1986–1988 |
Pursell v. Wolverine-Pentronix, Inc
green
2 sentences2019Therefore, plaintiff cannot avail itself of the partial performance doctrine. 2 See, e.g., Nygard v Nygard, 156 Mich App 94, 99 ; 401 NW2d 323 (1986) (stating that promissory estoppel may apply if statute of frauds prevents enforcement of child support contract); Pursell v Wolverine-Pentronix, Inc, 44 Mich App 416, 420 ; 205 NW2d 504 (1973) (applying promissory estoppel to oral contract that could not be performed within one year). -7- Therefore, we hold that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition with respect to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and pro 2019Therefore, plaintiff cannot avail itself of the partial performance doctrine. 2 See, e.g., Nygard v Nygard, 156 Mich App 94, 99 ; 401 NW2d 323 (1986) (stating that promissory estoppel may apply if statute of frauds prevents enforcement of child support contract); Pursell v Wolverine-Pentronix, Inc, 44 Mich App 416, 420 ; 205 NW2d 504 (1973) (applying promissory estoppel to oral contract that could not be performed within one year). -7- Therefore, we hold that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition with respect to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and pro | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Nygard v. Nygard
green
2 sentences2019Therefore, plaintiff cannot avail itself of the partial performance doctrine. 2 See, e.g., Nygard v Nygard, 156 Mich App 94, 99 ; 401 NW2d 323 (1986) (stating that promissory estoppel may apply if statute of frauds prevents enforcement of child support contract); Pursell v Wolverine-Pentronix, Inc, 44 Mich App 416, 420 ; 205 NW2d 504 (1973) (applying promissory estoppel to oral contract that could not be performed within one year). -7- Therefore, we hold that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition with respect to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and pro 2019Therefore, plaintiff cannot avail itself of the partial performance doctrine. 2 See, e.g., Nygard v Nygard, 156 Mich App 94, 99 ; 401 NW2d 323 (1986) (stating that promissory estoppel may apply if statute of frauds prevents enforcement of child support contract); Pursell v Wolverine-Pentronix, Inc, 44 Mich App 416, 420 ; 205 NW2d 504 (1973) (applying promissory estoppel to oral contract that could not be performed within one year). -7- Therefore, we hold that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition with respect to plaintiff’s breach of contract claim and pro | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Frazier
green
1 sentence2018We therefore apply the test set forth in Strickland, see Frazier, 478 Mich at 244 , and consider whether defense counsel’s performance was deficient, falling below an objective standard of reasonableness, and if so, whether there is a reasonable probability that, in the absence of counsel’s alleged errors, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Antonoff v. Basso
green
2 sentences2018One of the first cases discussing the doctrine of substantial performance is Antonoff v Basso, 347 Mich 18 ; 78 NW2d 604 (1956). 2018One of the first cases discussing the doctrine of substantial performance is Antonoff v Basso, 347 Mich 18 ; 78 NW2d 604 (1956). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Walsh v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2015Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621 ; 689 NW2d 506 (2004). 2015Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 618, 621 ; 689 NW2d 506 (2004). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Grant
green
2 sentences2015The evaluation of the performance of defense counsel is “from counsel’s perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of the circumstances.” People v Grant, 470 Mich 477, 487 ; 684 NW2d 686 (2004). 2015The evaluation of the performance of defense counsel is “from counsel’s perspective at the time of the alleged error and in light of the circumstances.” People v Grant, 470 Mich 477, 487 ; 684 NW2d 686 (2004). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
People v. Sabin
green
2 sentences2004Except in one instance as explained below, I do not share the majority’s opinion that the trial counsel’s performance fell below the standard articulated in People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 659 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). 2004Except in one instance as explained below, I do not share the majority’s opinion that the trial counsel’s performance fell below the standard articulated in People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242 Mich App 656, 659 ; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Willis
green
2 sentences2002Defendant has not challenged this reading, however she has challenged the reliability and accuracy. 3 Relying primarily on People v Willis, 180 Mich App 31 ; 446 NW2d 562 (1989), the circuit court ruled: In the instant case the operator neither waited the required 15 minutes between the tests nor offered a confirming test when a second test read “invalid,” even though required by Administrative Rules promulgated by the Michigan State Police. 4 People v Fosnaugh, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 30, 2000 (Docket No. 225555). 5 MCL 257.625c, states in part: “A person who 2002Defendant has not challenged this reading, however she has challenged the reliability and accuracy. 3 Relying primarily on People v Willis, 180 Mich App 31 ; 446 NW2d 562 (1989), the circuit court ruled: In the instant case the operator neither waited the required 15 minutes between the tests nor offered a confirming test when a second test read “invalid,” even though required by Administrative Rules promulgated by the Michigan State Police. 4 People v Fosnaugh, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 30, 2000 (Docket No. 225555). 5 MCL 257.625c, states in part: “A person who | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Stonehouse v. Stonehouse
green
1 sentence2002Plaintiffs concede that the six-year statute of limitations is applicable, but assert that the specific performance claim did not accrue until defendants initiated the eviction action in 1998, not when they paid the $38,000 in 1980, relying on Stonehouse, supra, 6 We agree. *552 In Stonehouse , the plaintiff sought specific performance of a contract to convey real property. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Derosia v. Austin
green
1 sentence1992Id. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Ross v. State Farm Insurance
green
1 sentence1991Ross v State Farm Ins Co, 676 F Supp 781 (ED Mich, 1987). [34] A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that an oral promise to retain an employee as district sales manager "` as long as his performance was maintained at a certain level'" was enforceable. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Stephenson v. Golden
green
1 sentence1987And it matters not whether such profit or advantage be the result of the performance or of the violation of the duty of the agent if it be the fruit of the agency.” Where the agent is also an officer of a corporation for which he is acting there is added reason for rigidly adhering to the rule. [Michigan Crown Fender Co v Welch, 211 Mich 148, 159, 160 ; 178 NW 684 (1920).] The Supreme Court has also quoted from Me-chem’s Outlines of Agency (1901 ed), § 148, stating: "Except with the full knowledge and consent of his principal, an agent authorized to buy for his principal cannot buy of himself; | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Abner A. Wolf, Inc. v. Walch
green
1 sentence1985Abner A Wolf, Inc, supra. However, plaintiff also had a right to a jury trial on his legal claim. 1 *175 While we have concluded that plaintiff should have been allowed to empanel a jury to hear his legal claim, we do not find reversal is necessary. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Ordon v. Johnson
green
2 sentences1984Plaintiff also argues that he should be permitted to recover damages against defendants on a theory based upon the doctrine of partial performance, citing Ordon v Johnson, 346 Mich 38 ; 77 NW2d 377 (1956). 1984Plaintiff also argues that he should be permitted to recover damages against defendants on a theory based upon the doctrine of partial performance, citing Ordon v Johnson, 346 Mich 38 ; 77 NW2d 377 (1956). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
McMath v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1981McMath, supra, 725 . 1981McMath, supra, 725 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Gordon v. Great Lakes Bowling Corp.
green
2 sentences1975Neither party prevailed in toto. 1 See Gordon v Great Lakes Bowling Corp, 18 Mich App 358 ; 171 NW2d 225 (1969), for a general statement of the substantial performance doctrine. 2 The former MCLA 618.68; MSA 27.1048 is set forth in 19 MLP, Reference, § 1, p 418. 3 Former GCR 1963, 920 may be found in the rules volume of Callaghan’s Michigan Pleading and Practice (1st ed) beginning at page 349. 1975Neither party prevailed in toto. 1 See Gordon v Great Lakes Bowling Corp, 18 Mich App 358 ; 171 NW2d 225 (1969), for a general statement of the substantial performance doctrine. 2 The former MCLA 618.68; MSA 27.1048 is set forth in 19 MLP, Reference, § 1, p 418. 3 Former GCR 1963, 920 may be found in the rules volume of Callaghan’s Michigan Pleading and Practice (1st ed) beginning at page 349. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Weissberger v. Brown-Bellows-Smith, Inc. green | 1 | 1969–1969 |
| Gutov v. Clark green | 1 | 1966–1966 |
| Garber v. Town neutral | 1 | 1920–1920 |
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.