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.
29 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2026 7 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 |
|---|---|---|
Montgomery v. Stephangreen2 sentences1982First, Bauman involved a loss of consortium claim which had not been recognized by the courts in Michigan prior to Montgomery v Stephan, 359 Mich 33 ; 101 NW2d 227 (1960), while the present case involves a claim which resulted because a statute was found to be unconstitutional. 1982First, Bauman involved a loss of consortium claim which had not been recognized by the courts in Michigan prior to Montgomery v Stephan, 359 Mich 33 ; 101 NW2d 227 (1960), while the present case involves a claim which resulted because a statute was found to be unconstitutional. | 2 | 3 |
Wilson v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2023Wilson v Wilson, 179 Mich App 519, 521, 524 ; 446 NW2d 496 (1989). 2023Wilson v Wilson, 179 Mich App 519, 521, 524 ; 446 NW2d 496 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
Pickering v. Pickeringgreen2 sentences2022However, “a personal injury settlement may be treated as marital property where the original action included a loss of consortium claim and the settlement check was made payable to both parties and treated by the parties as marital property.” Id. at 11 . 2020Furthermore, “a personal injury settlement may be treated as marital property where the original action included a loss of consortium claim and the settlement check was made payable to both parties and treated by the parties as marital property.” Id. at 11 . | 1 | 3 |
Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commissiongreen2 sentences2025See Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 267 Mich App 274, 279 ; 705 NW2d 136 (2005) (noting that a loss-of-consortium claim is derivative), aff’d 480 Mich 75 (2008). 2025See Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 267 Mich App 274, 279 ; 705 NW2d 136 (2005) (noting that a loss-of-consortium claim is derivative), aff’d 480 Mich 75 (2008). | 1 | 2 |
Moss v. Pacquinggreen2 sentences2026Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 29 ; 427 NW2d 488 (1988) (explaining that a loss of consortium claim is derivative because “it does not arise at all unless the other, impaired spouse has sustained some legally cognizable harm or injury”); Moss v Pacquing, 183 Mich App 574, 583 ; 455 NW2d 339 (1990) (“ [A spouse’s] recovery for loss of consortium stands or falls upon [the other spouse’s] -8- recovery of damages.”). 2026Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 29 ; 427 NW2d 488 (1988) (explaining that a loss of consortium claim is derivative because “it does not arise at all unless the other, impaired spouse has sustained some legally cognizable harm or injury”); Moss v Pacquing, 183 Mich App 574, 583 ; 455 NW2d 339 (1990) (“ [A spouse’s] recovery for loss of consortium stands or falls upon [the other spouse’s] -8- recovery of damages.”). | 1 | 1 |
Moran v. Nafi Corporationgreen1 sentence2002We hold the legislative intent expressed in the act precludes the judicial construction contended for by plaintiff and adopted by the learned trial judge [which would have allowed the loss of consortium claim to go forward]. [Id. at 543, 122 N.W.2d 800 .] [9] *334 In Balcer , which was considered and released with Moran , Justice Smith concluded to similar effect that the exclusive remedy provision barred a claim by a third party against the employer on the basis of an injury to an employee. | 1 | 1 |
Chiesa v. Rowegreen2 sentences1986However, in Chisea v Rowe, 486 F Supp 236 (WD Mich, 1980), the court, applying Michigan substantive law, dismissed a wife's loss of consortium claim when her husband's injury occurred while they were engaged. 1986However, in Chisea v Rowe, 486 F Supp 236 (WD Mich, 1980), the court, applying Michigan substantive law, dismissed a wife’s loss of consortium claim when her husband’s injury occurred while they were engaged. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co.
green
2 sentences2026Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 29 ; 427 NW2d 488 (1988) (explaining that a loss of consortium claim is derivative because “it does not arise at all unless the other, impaired spouse has sustained some legally cognizable harm or injury”); Moss v Pacquing, 183 Mich App 574, 583 ; 455 NW2d 339 (1990) (“ [A spouse’s] recovery for loss of consortium stands or falls upon [the other spouse’s] -8- recovery of damages.”). 2026Eide v Kelsey-Hayes Co, 431 Mich 26, 29 ; 427 NW2d 488 (1988) (explaining that a loss of consortium claim is derivative because “it does not arise at all unless the other, impaired spouse has sustained some legally cognizable harm or injury”); Moss v Pacquing, 183 Mich App 574, 583 ; 455 NW2d 339 (1990) (“ [A spouse’s] recovery for loss of consortium stands or falls upon [the other spouse’s] -8- recovery of damages.”). | 5 | 1999–2026 |
Wesche v. Mecosta County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2025See Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 267 Mich App 274, 279 ; 705 NW2d 136 (2005) (noting that a loss-of-consortium claim is derivative), aff’d 480 Mich 75 (2008). 2013Id. at 85 . | 2 | 2013–2025 |
Washington v. Jones
green
2 sentences1989Washington v Jones, 386 Mich 466, 472 ; 192 NW2d 234 (1971). 1989Washington v Jones, 386 Mich 466, 472 ; 192 NW2d 234 (1971). | 2 | 1978–1989 |
Ledsinger v. Burmeister
green
2 sentences1986In Ledsinger v Burmeister, 114 Mich App 12, 26 ; 318 NW2d 558 (1982), the Court held that, since the plaintiffs had stated a valid cause of action under the Civil Rights Act, the spouse had a viable derivative cause of action for a loss of consortium claim under the act. 1986In Ledsinger v Burmeister, 114 Mich App 12, 26 ; 318 NW2d 558 (1982), the Court held that, since the plaintiffs had stated a valid cause of action under the Civil Rights Act, the spouse had a viable derivative cause of action for a loss of consortium claim under the act. | 2 | 1982–1986 |
Espinoza v. Thomas
green
2 sentences2026“A battery is the wilful and harmful or offensive touching of another person which results from an act intended to cause such a contact.” Espinoza v Thomas, 189 Mich App 110, 119 ; 472 NW2d 16 (1991). 2026“A battery is the wilful and harmful or offensive touching of another person which results from an act intended to cause such a contact.” Espinoza v Thomas, 189 Mich App 110, 119 ; 472 NW2d 16 (1991). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
McCORMICK v. CARRIER
green
2 sentences2022“A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.” MCL 500.3135(1).3 Whether a serious impairment of a body function has occurred is a question of law for the trial court if 2 Plaintiff also raised a loss of consortium claim and an excess wage loss claim, which are not at issue in this appeal. 3 At the time of the trial court proceedings, former MCL 500.3135, 2012 PA 158 , effective October 2022“A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.” MCL 500.3135(1).3 Whether a serious impairment of a body function has occurred is a question of law for the trial court if 2 Plaintiff also raised a loss of consortium claim and an excess wage loss claim, which are not at issue in this appeal. 3 At the time of the trial court proceedings, former MCL 500.3135, 2012 PA 158 , effective October | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Latham v. Barton Malow Co.
green
2 sentences2016Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), “[s]ummary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105, 111 ; 746 NW2d 868 (2008). 2016Under MCR 2.116(C)(10), “[s]ummary disposition is appropriate if there is no genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105, 111 ; 746 NW2d 868 (2008). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Calhoun County v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
green
2 sentences2016When reviewing a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), we may only consider, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, the evidence that was before the trial court, which 2 Plaintiff Ruth only alleged a loss of consortium claim, which was derivative to Roger Wildbahn’s claims. -2- consists of “the ‘affidavits, together with the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence then filed in the action or submitted by the parties.’ ” Calhoun Co v Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan, 297 Mich App 1, 11 ; 824 NW2d 202 (2012), quoting MCR 2.116(G)( 2016When reviewing a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), we may only consider, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, the evidence that was before the trial court, which 2 Plaintiff Ruth only alleged a loss of consortium claim, which was derivative to Roger Wildbahn’s claims. -2- consists of “the ‘affidavits, together with the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and documentary evidence then filed in the action or submitted by the parties.’ ” Calhoun Co v Blue Cross Blue Shield Michigan, 297 Mich App 1, 11 ; 824 NW2d 202 (2012), quoting MCR 2.116(G)( | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Kik v. Sbraccia
neutral
2 sentences2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag 2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Kik v. Sbraccia
neutral
2 sentences2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag 2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Balcer v. Leonard Refineries, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Id. at 532-533, 122 N.W.2d 805 (Smith, J.). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Nawrocki v. MacOmb County Road Commission
green
1 sentence2001MCL 691.1407; Nawrocki, supra at 157 , 615 N.W.2d 702 . [6] Plaintiff's accident occurred on January 29, 1996. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Jarvis v. Providence Hospital
green
2 sentences1999While it is true that Michigan common law recognizes a claim of negligence on behalf of a fetus for prenatal injury if (1) the fetus is later bom alive, or (2) the fetus was viable at the time of injury, Jarvis v Providence Hosp, 178 Mich App 586, 591 ; 444 NW2d 236 (1989), the cause of action presented in this case is not a negligence claim. 1999While it is true that Michigan common law recognizes a claim of negligence on behalf of a fetus for prenatal injury if (1) the fetus is later bom alive, or (2) the fetus was viable at the time of injury, Jarvis v Providence Hosp, 178 Mich App 586, 591 ; 444 NW2d 236 (1989), the cause of action presented in this case is not a negligence claim. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Pekin Insurance Co. v. Hugh
green
1 sentence1998In Pekin, supra at 511-512 , the Iowa Supreme Court specifically distinguished a bystander claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress from a claim of loss of consortium and held that the bystander claim was subject to a “per occurrence,” rather than “per person,” limitation of coverage, stating: Unlike the loss of consortium claim, an injury the bystander suffers is not one that results from an injury to another person. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.
yellow
2 sentences1990Uckele was later joined as a third-party defendant under the theory that it was aware of the danger posed by the missing grate and knew with substantial certainty that injury would occur, thereby subjecting it to intentional tort liability pursuant to Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 427 Mich 1 ; 398 NW2d 882 (1986). 1990Uckele was later joined as a third-party defendant under the theory that it was aware of the danger posed by the missing grate and knew with substantial certainty that injury would occur, thereby subjecting it to intentional tort liability pursuant to Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 427 Mich 1 ; 398 NW2d 882 (1986). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Oldani v. Lieberman
green
2 sentences1986While it is clear that Michigan law permits a loss of consortium claim in a negligence action, Oldani v Lieberman, 144 Mich App 642, 645 ; 375 NW2d 778 (1985), defendant argues that such a claim is not cognizable under the Civil Rights Act. 1986While it is clear that Michigan law permits a loss of consortium claim in a negligence action, Oldani v Lieberman, 144 Mich App 642, 645 ; 375 NW2d 778 (1985), defendant argues that such a claim is not cognizable under the Civil Rights Act. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Lipsitz v. Schechter
green
2 sentences1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Johnston v. Harris
green
2 sentences1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Keiswetter v. City of Petoskey
green
2 sentences1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Siegel v. Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co.
green
2 sentences1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Butler v. Watson
green
2 sentences1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 1983Affirmed. 1 Also included as a plaintiff was Du Renda Williams, the wife of John Williams, whose cause of action was based on a loss of consortium claim. 2 Joined as defendants in this action were Lee Davidson, the assailant, Promotions, Inc., Star Security Service, Inc., and Michigan Hot Rod Association. 3 124 Mich App 590, 593 ; 335 NW2d 94 (1983). 4 Lipsitz v Schechter, 377 Mich 685, 687 ; 142 NW2d 1 (1966); Prosser, Torts (4th ed), § 63, pp 399-400. 5 Butler v Watson, 193 Mich 322, 328 ; 159 NW 507 (1916); 2 Restatement Torts, 2d, § 360, pp 250-253. 6 Siegel v Detroit City Ice & Fuel Co, 3 | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.