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.
25 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2023 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 |
|---|---|---|
Haliw v. City of Sterling Heightsgreen2 sentences2023When examining the court rules, “[t]he intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Haliw v Sterling Hts, 471 Mich 700, 706 ; 691 NW2d 753 (2005). 2023When examining the court rules, “[t]he intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Haliw v Sterling Hts, 471 Mich 700, 706 ; 691 NW2d 753 (2005). | 3 | 11 |
Henry v. Dow Chemical Co.green2 sentences2022“The intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Id. (citation omitted). -6- because plaintiff failed to accurately disclose his full income, the payments that he received from Kidder Associates, and the sources of income reported on his tax returns. 2020“The intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 9 |
G C Timmis & Co. v. Guardian Alarm Co.green2 sentences2022When interpreting a court rule or statute, we must be mindful of “the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated.” [Haliw v Sterling Hts, 471 Mich 700, 706 ; 691 NW2d 753 (2005) (cleaned up).] Provisions of a statute or court rule must be read in the context of the entire statute or rule and “the words and phrases used there must be assigned such meanings as are in harmony with the whole of the statute [or court rule].” G C Timmis & Co v Guardian Alarm Co, 468 Mich 416, 421 ; 662 NW2d 710 (2003). 2022When interpreting a court rule or statute, we must be mindful of “the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated.” [Haliw v Sterling Hts, 471 Mich 700, 706 ; 691 NW2d 753 (2005) (cleaned up).] Provisions of a statute or court rule must be read in the context of the entire statute or rule and “the words and phrases used there must be assigned such meanings as are in harmony with the whole of the statute [or court rule].” G C Timmis & Co v Guardian Alarm Co, 468 Mich 416, 421 ; 662 NW2d 710 (2003). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Bulgerred2 sentences2005See Haliw, supra at 706 (“The intent of the [court] rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.”); see, e.g., People v Bulger, 462 Mich 495, 539-540 ; 614 NW2d 103 (2000) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting) (the court rules applicable to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court are found in subchapters 7.200 and 7.300, respectively). 2005See Haliw, supra at 706 (“The intent of the [court] rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.”); see, e.g., People v Bulger, 462 Mich 495, 539-540 ; 614 NW2d 103 (2000) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting) (the court rules applicable to the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court are found in subchapters 7.200 and 7.300, respectively). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Decker v. Trux R US, Inc
green
2 sentences2023“When construing a court rule, we begin with its plain language; when that language is unambiguous, we must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” Id. “[T]he intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Decker v Trux R Us, Inc, 307 Mich App 472, 479 ; 861 NW2d 59 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2023“When construing a court rule, we begin with its plain language; when that language is unambiguous, we must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” Id. “[T]he intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Decker v Trux R Us, Inc, 307 Mich App 472, 479 ; 861 NW2d 59 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 5 | 2018–2023 |
Ligons v. Crittenton Hospital
green
2 sentences2018This Court "interpret[s] court rules using the same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes." Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp. , 490 Mich. 61 , 70, 803 N.W.2d 271 (2011). "[W]e look to the plain language of the court rule in order to ascertain its meaning and the intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole." Decker v. Trux R Us, Inc. , 307 Mich. App. 472 , 479, 861 N.W.2d 59 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2018This Court "interpret[s] court rules using the same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes." Ligons v. Crittenton Hosp. , 490 Mich. 61 , 70, 803 N.W.2d 271 (2011). "[W]e look to the plain language of the court rule in order to ascertain its meaning and the intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole." Decker v. Trux R Us, Inc. , 307 Mich. App. 472 , 479, 861 N.W.2d 59 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 2018–2018 |
Jenson v. Puste
green
2 sentences2019We look to “ ‘the plain language of the court rule in order to ascertain its meaning’ and the ‘intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.’ ” Id., quoting Henry v Dow Chem Co, 484 Mich 483, 495 ; 772 NW2d 301 (2009). “ ‘If the rule’s language is plain and unambiguous, then judicial construction is not permitted and the rule must be applied as written.’ ” Decker, 307 Mich App at 479 , quoting Jenson v Puste, 290 Mich App 338, 342 ; 801 NW2d 639 (2010). 2019We look to “ ‘the plain language of the court rule in order to ascertain its meaning’ and the ‘intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.’ ” Id., quoting Henry v Dow Chem Co, 484 Mich 483, 495 ; 772 NW2d 301 (2009). “ ‘If the rule’s language is plain and unambiguous, then judicial construction is not permitted and the rule must be applied as written.’ ” Decker, 307 Mich App at 479 , quoting Jenson v Puste, 290 Mich App 338, 342 ; 801 NW2d 639 (2010). | 2 | 2014–2019 |
Grievance Administrator v. Underwood
green
2 sentences2016When the language of the court rule “is unambiguous, [this Court] must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” Grievance Administrator v Underwood, 462 Mich 188, 194 ; 612 NW2d 116 (2000). 2016When the language of the court rule “is unambiguous, [this Court] must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” Grievance Administrator v Underwood, 462 Mich 188, 194 ; 612 NW2d 116 (2000). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Williams
green
1 sentence2023“When construing a court rule, we begin with its plain language; when that language is unambiguous, we must enforce the meaning expressed, without further judicial construction or interpretation.” Id. “[T]he intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Decker v Trux R Us, Inc, 307 Mich App 472, 479 ; 861 NW2d 59 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Nancy Sanders v. McLaren-macomb
green
2 sentences2018This Court in Sanders v McLaren-Macomb, 323 Mich App 254, 266-267 ; 916 NW2d 305 (2018), recently summarized the proper method for interpreting court rules: This Court “interpret[s] court rules using the same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes.” Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70 ; 803 NW2d 271 (2011). “[W]e look to the plain language of the court rule in order to ascertain its meaning and the intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Decker v Trux R Us 2018This Court in Sanders v McLaren-Macomb, 323 Mich App 254, 266-267 ; 916 NW2d 305 (2018), recently summarized the proper method for interpreting court rules: This Court “interpret[s] court rules using the same principles that govern the interpretation of statutes.” Ligons v Crittenton Hosp, 490 Mich 61, 70 ; 803 NW2d 271 (2011). “[W]e look to the plain language of the court rule in order to ascertain its meaning and the intent of the rule must be determined from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Decker v Trux R Us | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Lech v. Huntmore Estates Condominium Association
neutral
1 sentence2016We determine the intent of the court rule “from an examination of the court rule itself and its place within the structure of the Michigan Court Rules as a whole.” Haliw [v Sterling Hts], 471 Mich [700,] 706 [; 691 NW2d 753 (2005)]. [Lech, 310 Mich App at 261 .] II. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co.
green
2 sentences2005When interpreting a court rule or statute, we must be mindful of “the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated . ...” Green v Bock Laundry Machine Co, 490 US 504, 528 ; 109 S Ct 1981 ; 104 L Ed 2d 557 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring). 2005When interpreting a court rule or statute, we must be mindful of “the surrounding body of law into which the provision must be integrated . ...” Green v Bock Laundry Machine Co, 490 US 504, 528 ; 109 S Ct 1981 ; 104 L Ed 2d 557 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.