30 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1980–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snydergreen2 sentences2026This Court next held that if the plaintiffs could prove that the defendants concealed information such that the plaintiffs “could not, or should not, have known of the existence of the causes of action until a date less than six months prior to the date of their complaint, application of the fraudulent-concealment exception will fully apply. . . .” Id. at 44-45 . 2026The fraudulent-concealment exception under MCL 600.5855, if applicable, may “toll the statutory notice period as well as the statutory limitations period.” Mays, 323 Mich App at 43-44 . | 4 | 12 |
Apsey v. Memorial Hospitalgreen2 sentences2025See Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 -10- (2007) (“A statute is rendered nugatory when an interpretation fails to give it meaning or effect.”). “[C]ourts must interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” Further, when there is “tension, or even conflict, between sections of a statute,” this Court has a “duty to, if reasonably possible, construe them both so as to give meaning to each; that is, to harmonize them.” Nowell v Titan Ins Co, 2025See Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 -10- (2007) (“A statute is rendered nugatory when an interpretation fails to give it meaning or effect.”). “[C]ourts must interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” Further, when there is “tension, or even conflict, between sections of a statute,” this Court has a “duty to, if reasonably possible, construe them both so as to give meaning to each; that is, to harmonize them.” Nowell v Titan Ins Co, | 3 | 5 |
GMAC LLC v. Department of Treasurygreen2 sentences2018While "the Legislature is presumed to be aware of, and thus to have considered the effect [of a statutory enactment] on, all existing statutes," GMAC LLC , 286 Mich. App. at 372 , 781 N.W.2d 310 (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added), it makes no sense to presume knowledge of a potential future conflict without a context in which such knowledge would arise. 2018While "the Legislature is presumed to be aware of, and thus to have considered the effect [of a statutory enactment] on, all existing statutes," GMAC LLC , 286 Mich. App. at 372 , 781 N.W.2d 310 (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added), it makes no sense to presume knowledge of a potential future conflict without a context in which such knowledge would arise. | 2 | 2 |
Peterman v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem 2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem | 1 | 2 |
Spiek v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem 2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem | 1 | 2 |
Wallad v. Access Bidco, Incgreen2 sentences2022“However, ‘[a]n exception to [the general rule requiring an affirmative act or misrepresentation] is that there -4- is an affirmative duty to disclose where the parties are in a fiduciary relationship.’ ” Id. “[T]he directors of a corporation owe fiduciary duties to stockholders and are bound to act in good faith for the benefit of the corporation.” Wallad v Access BIDCO, Inc, 236 Mich App 303, 306 ; 600 NW2d 664, 666 (1999). 2022“However, ‘[a]n exception to [the general rule requiring an affirmative act or misrepresentation] is that there -4- is an affirmative duty to disclose where the parties are in a fiduciary relationship.’ ” Id. “[T]he directors of a corporation owe fiduciary duties to stockholders and are bound to act in good faith for the benefit of the corporation.” Wallad v Access BIDCO, Inc, 236 Mich App 303, 306 ; 600 NW2d 664, 666 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Dillard v. Schlusselgreen1 sentence2016See Dillard, 308 Mich App at 443 . | 1 | 1 |
De Haan v. Wintergreen2 sentences1980See, DeHaan v Winter, 258 Mich 293 ; 241 NW 923 (1932), MCL 600.5855; MSA 27A.5855. 1980See, DeHaan v Winter, 258 Mich 293 ; 241 NW 923 (1932), MCL 600.5855; MSA 27A.5855. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Detroit
green
2 sentences2026There is no fraudulent concealment when the cause of action is known, and “a party will be held to know what [he or she] ought to know . . . by the exercise of ordinary diligence . . . .” Doe v Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit, 264 Mich App 632, 646-647 ; 692 NW2d 398 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2016In -3- “focusing on the fraudulent-concealment claim, we focus on [a] defendant’s alleged actions after the alleged abuse.” Id. | 9 | 2016–2026 |
Sills v. Oakland General Hospital
green
2 sentences2018For the fraudulent concealment exception to apply, a “plaintiff must plead in the complaint the acts or misrepresentations that comprised the fraudulent concealment,” and “prove that the defendant committed affirmative acts or misrepresentations that were designed to prevent subsequent discovery.” Sills v Oakland Gen Hosp, 220 Mich App 303, 310 ; 559 NW2d 348 (1996). 2018For the fraudulent concealment exception to apply, a “plaintiff must plead in the complaint the acts or misrepresentations that comprised the fraudulent concealment,” and “prove that the defendant committed affirmative acts or misrepresentations that were designed to prevent subsequent discovery.” Sills v Oakland Gen Hosp, 220 Mich App 303, 310 ; 559 NW2d 348 (1996). | 5 | 2005–2018 |
Nowell v. Titan Insurance
green
2 sentences2025See Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 -10- (2007) (“A statute is rendered nugatory when an interpretation fails to give it meaning or effect.”). “[C]ourts must interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” Further, when there is “tension, or even conflict, between sections of a statute,” this Court has a “duty to, if reasonably possible, construe them both so as to give meaning to each; that is, to harmonize them.” Nowell v Titan Ins Co, 2025See Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 -10- (2007) (“A statute is rendered nugatory when an interpretation fails to give it meaning or effect.”). “[C]ourts must interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” Further, when there is “tension, or even conflict, between sections of a statute,” this Court has a “duty to, if reasonably possible, construe them both so as to give meaning to each; that is, to harmonize them.” Nowell v Titan Ins Co, | 3 | 2018–2025 |
Reserve at Heritage Village Ass'n v. Warren Financial Acquisition, LLC
green
2 sentences2023“For a plaintiff to be sufficiently apprised of a cause of action, a plaintiff need only be aware of a possible cause of action.” The Reserve at Heritage Village Ass’n v Warren Fin Acquisition, LLC, 305 Mich App 92, 123 ; 850 NW2d 649 (2014) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2022For the fraudulent-concealment exception to apply, the plaintiff “is required to plead more than mere silence.” The Reserve at Heritage Village Ass’n, 305 Mich App at 123 . | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Robinson v. City of Lansing
green
2 sentences2020The plaintiff would never have an ability to utilize the Legislature’s fraudulent-concealment exception in MCL 600.6452(2) to toll the statutory notice period. “[S]tatutory provisions are not to be read in isolation; rather, context matters, and thus statutory provisions are to be read as a whole.” Robinson v Lansing, 486 Mich 1, 15 ; 782 NW2d 171 (2010). 2020The plaintiff would never have an ability to utilize the Legislature’s fraudulent-concealment exception in MCL 600.6452(2) to toll the statutory notice period. “[S]tatutory provisions are not to be read in isolation; rather, context matters, and thus statutory provisions are to be read as a whole.” Robinson v Lansing, 486 Mich 1, 15 ; 782 NW2d 171 (2010). | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Jones v. Powell
green
2 sentences2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem 2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Smith v. Department of Public Health
green
2 sentences2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem 2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem | 2 | 2019–2019 |
McCAHAN v. BRENNAN
green
2 sentences2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem 2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Rusha v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem 2019The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) when the plaintiffs' cause of action accrued, see Henry v. Dow Chemical Co. , 501 Mich. 965 , 905 N.W.2d 601 (2018), and Frank v. Linkner , 500 Mich. 133 , 894 N.W.2d 574 (2017) ; (2) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the fraudulent concealment exception in MCL 600.5855 applies to the statutory notice period in MCL 600.6431(3) ; (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that under the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq ., there is a "harsh and unreasonable consequences" exception to the notice requirem | 2 | 2019–2019 |
O’connell v. Director of Elections
green
2 sentences2018See Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 (“A statute is rendered nugatory when an interpretation fails to give it meaning or effect.”). “[C]ourts must interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” O’Connell v Director of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 98 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016). 2018See Apsey v Mem Hosp, 477 Mich 120, 131 ; 730 NW2d 695 (“A statute is rendered nugatory when an interpretation fails to give it meaning or effect.”). “[C]ourts must interpret statutes in a way that gives effect to every word, phrase, and clause in a statute and avoid an interpretation that would render any part of the statute surplusage or nugatory.” O’Connell v Director of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 98 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Dawson v. Secretary of State
green
2 sentences2018"The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Dawson v. Secretary of State , 274 Mich. App. 723 , 729, 739 N.W.2d 339 (2007) (opinion by Wilder, P.J.). 2018"The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature." Dawson v. Secretary of State , 274 Mich. App. 723 , 729, 739 N.W.2d 339 (2007) (opinion by Wilder, P.J.). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Dunmore v. Babaoff
neutral
1 sentence2016“A fraudulent concealment claim cannot be established unless the plaintiff proves some affirmative act or misrepresentation on the part of the defendant which is designed to prevent subsequent discovery.” Id. at 146 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Moll v. Abbott Laboratories
green
2 sentences2016“For a plaintiff to be sufficiently apprised of a cause of action, a plaintiff need only be aware of a ‘possible cause of action.’ ” Doe, 264 Mich App at 643 , quoting Moll v Abbott Laboratories, 444 Mich 1 , 23–24; 506 NW2d 816 (1993). 2016“For a plaintiff to be sufficiently apprised of a cause of action, a plaintiff need only be aware of a ‘possible cause of action.’ ” Doe, 264 Mich App at 643 , quoting Moll v Abbott Laboratories, 444 Mich 1 , 23–24; 506 NW2d 816 (1993). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lemmerman v. Fealk
green
1 sentence2005According to MCL 600.5805(1), “A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless .. . the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section.” The purposes of statutes of limitation are manifold: Statutes of limitation are designed to encourage the rapid recovery of damages, to penalize plaintiffs who have not been assiduous in pursuing their claims, to afford security against stale demands when the circumstances would be unfavorable to a just examination and decision, to relieve defendants of the prolonged threa | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Arent v. Hatch
green
2 sentences1985Arent v Hatch, 133 Mich App 700, 706 ; 349 NW2d 536 (1984), lv den 419 Mich 939 (1984). 1985Arent v Hatch, 133 Mich App 700, 706 ; 349 NW2d 536 (1984), lv den 419 Mich 939 (1984). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.