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.
24 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1968–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hawkins; People v. Scherfgreen2 sentences2005“The reenactment rule differs from the legislative-acquiescence doctrine in that the former canon provides ‘prima facie evidence of legislative intent’ by the adoption, without modification, of a statutory provision that had already received judicial interpretation.” Hawkins, supra at 488, quoting Singer at 107. [Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 676 ; 685 NW2d 648 (2004) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting).] I continue to find extremely persuasive the notion that a Legislature is presumed to be aware of this Court’s decisions. 2004“The reenactment rule differs from the legislative-acquiescence doctrine in that the former canon provides ‘prima facie evidence of legislative intent’ by the adoption, without modification, of a statutory provision that had already received judicial interpretation.” Hawkins, supra at 488, quoting Singer at 107. | 4 | 5 |
Donajkowski v. Alpena Power Co.green2 sentences2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet 2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet | 2 | 6 |
McCAHAN v. BRENNANgreen2 sentences2015Thus, the doctrine of legislative acquiescence is a highly disfavored doctrine of statutory construction; sound principles of statutory construction require that Michigan courts determine the Legislature’s intent from its words, not from its silence. [McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730, 749-750 ; 822 NW2d 747 (2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Moreover, under the legislative-acquiescence doctrine, Congress would have been on notice of the Dykstra holding as well as the USDL’s interpretation, a fact that undercuts petitioner’s claim that Congress intended to have the USDL’s interpret 2015Thus, the doctrine of legislative acquiescence is a highly disfavored doctrine of statutory construction; sound principles of statutory construction require that Michigan courts determine the Legislature’s intent from its words, not from its silence. [McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730, 749-750 ; 822 NW2d 747 (2012) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Moreover, under the legislative-acquiescence doctrine, Congress would have been on notice of the Dykstra holding as well as the USDL’s interpretation, a fact that undercuts petitioner’s claim that Congress intended to have the USDL’s interpret | 1 | 2 |
Rogers v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet 2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet | 1 | 2 |
Petersen v. Magna Corp.green2 sentences2010Indeed, the author of the majority opinion, as one who subscribes to the doctrine of legislative acquiescence, has often argued that principles of stare decisis are especially will not know this beforehand.” Petersen, 484 Mich at 380 (MARKMAN, J., dissenting). * * * Although Justice WEAVER is correct that “there are many factors to consider in deciding whether or not to overrule precedent,” and Justice HATHAWAY is equally correct that the application of stare decisis must take place on a “case-by-case basis,” this does not obviate the need to at least reasonably attempt to apprise the parties, 2010And while the partial dissent correctly notes that I personally support the doctrine of legislative acquiescence, that doctrine does not enable this Court to adhere to an unconstitutional interpretation of a statute. [14] While there are competing tests for determining whether a case should be overruled, I personally remain committed to the stare decisis factors pronounced by Chief Justice KELLY in Petersen v. Magna Corp., 484 Mich. 300, 317-320 , 773 N.W.2d 564 (2009) (opinion by KELLY, C.J.), and, although other justices disagree with this test, I personally believe that this Court should ad | 1 | 2 |
People v. Ansteygreen2 sentences2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste 2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste | 1 | 2 |
McCORMICK v. CARRIERgreen2 sentences2021See also McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 195 ; 795 NW2d 517 (2010); Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 , 3 Although petitioner is incorrect about the doctrine of legislative acquiescence, it is correct that we are nevertheless bound by St Joseph’s. 2021See also McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 195 ; 795 NW2d 517 (2010); Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 , 3 Although petitioner is incorrect about the doctrine of legislative acquiescence, it is correct that we are nevertheless bound by St Joseph’s. | 1 | 1 |
Associated Builders and Contractors v. City of Lansinggreen2 sentences2021See Associated Builders & Contractors v City of Lansing, 499 Mich. 177, 191-192 ; 880 NW2d 765 (2016), discussed later in this opinion. -4- 526; 697 NW2d 895 (2005). 2021See Associated Builders & Contractors v City of Lansing, 499 Mich. 177, 191-192 ; 880 NW2d 765 (2016), discussed later in this opinion. -4- 526; 697 NW2d 895 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
Badger Catholic, Inc. v. Walshgreen2 sentences2014See McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 , 757 n 22; 822 NW2d 747 (2012) (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting); Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28, 53-54 ; 732 NW2d 56 (2007) (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting). 6 evade it will likely “come to regret it.” US Dep’t of Health & Human Servs, 780 F Supp 2d at 1316 , quoting Badger Catholic, Inc v Walsh, 620 F3d 775, 782 (CA 7, 2010).5 “If it were otherwise, a . . . declaratory judgment would serve no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). 2014See McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 , 757 n 22; 822 NW2d 747 (2012) (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting); Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28, 53-54 ; 732 NW2d 56 (2007) (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting). 6 evade it will likely “come to regret it.” US Dep’t of Health & Human Servs, 780 F Supp 2d at 1316 , quoting Badger Catholic, Inc v Walsh, 620 F3d 775, 782 (CA 7, 2010).5 “If it were otherwise, a . . . declaratory judgment would serve no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Managementgreen2 sentences2005Id.; see also Lindahl v Office of Personnel Mgt, 470 US 768, 782 ; 105 S Ct 1620 ; 84 L Ed 2d 674 , (1985). 2005Id.; see also Lindahl v Office of Personnel Mgt, 470 US 768, 782 ; 105 S Ct 1620 ; 84 L Ed 2d 674 , (1985). | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Pricegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fiser v. City of Ann Arborgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Clayton Estategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Hawkins
green
2 sentences2005"The reenactment rule differs from the legislative-acquiescence doctrine in that the former canon provides `prima facie evidence of legislative intent' by the adoption, without modification, of a statutory provision that had already received judicial interpretation." Hawkins, supra at 488, 668 N.W.2d 602 , quoting Singer at 107. [ Neal v. Wilkes, 470 Mich. 661, 676 , 685 N.W.2d 648 (2004) (Cavanagh, J., dissenting).] *569 I continue to find extremely persuasive the notion that a Legislature is presumed to be aware of this Court's decisions. 2004"The reenactment rule differs from the legislative-acquiescence doctrine in that the former canon provides `prima facie evidence of legislative intent' by the adoption, without modification, of a statutory provision that had already received judicial interpretation." Hawkins, supra at 488, 668 N.W.2d 602 , quoting Singer at 107. | 4 | 2004–2007 |
Rowland v. Washtenaw County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2021Indeed, “the legislative acquiescence doctrine is a highly disfavored doctrine of statutory construction; sound principles of statutory construction require that Michigan courts determine the Legislature’s intent from its words, not from its silence.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet | 3 | 2010–2021 |
Magreta v. Ambassador Steel Co.
green
2 sentences1993"Because of the indirect nature of the support it provides, the legislative acquiescence principle, even when applicable, is not alone controlling.” Lamb v Bureau of Pardons, 106 Mich App 175, 183 ; 307 NW2d 754 (1981), citing Magreta v Ambassador Steel Co, 380 Mich 513, 520 ; 158 NW2d 473 (1968). 1993"Because of the indirect nature of the support it provides, the legislative acquiescence principle, even when applicable, is not alone controlling.” Lamb v Bureau of Pardons, 106 Mich App 175, 183 ; 307 NW2d 754 (1981), citing Magreta v Ambassador Steel Co, 380 Mich 513, 520 ; 158 NW2d 473 (1968). | 3 | 1985–1993 |
Autio v. Proksch Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet 2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet | 2 | 2008–2012 |
Paige v. City of Sterling Heights
green
2 sentences2010Indeed, the author of the majority opinion, as one who subscribes to the doctrine of legislative acquiescence, has often argued that principles of stare decisis are especially strong in matters of statutory interpretation. 35 Accordingly, his own words are relevant here: “[T]he majority does not adequately explain why it disregards the doctrine of stare decisis in a matter of statutory interpretation when the Legislature itself has not seen fit in [six] years to correct [Kreiner’s] allegedly incorrect interpretation.” Id. at 536 . 2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste | 2 | 2007–2010 |
Neal v. Wilkes
green
2 sentences2005“The reenactment rule differs from the legislative-acquiescence doctrine in that the former canon provides ‘prima facie evidence of legislative intent’ by the adoption, without modification, of a statutory provision that had already received judicial interpretation.” Hawkins, supra at 488, quoting Singer at 107. [Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 676 ; 685 NW2d 648 (2004) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting).] I continue to find extremely persuasive the notion that a Legislature is presumed to be aware of this Court’s decisions. 2005“The reenactment rule differs from the legislative-acquiescence doctrine in that the former canon provides ‘prima facie evidence of legislative intent’ by the adoption, without modification, of a statutory provision that had already received judicial interpretation.” Hawkins, supra at 488, quoting Singer at 107. [Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661, 676 ; 685 NW2d 648 (2004) (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting).] I continue to find extremely persuasive the notion that a Legislature is presumed to be aware of this Court’s decisions. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Griffith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2021See also McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180, 195 ; 795 NW2d 517 (2010); Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 , 3 Although petitioner is incorrect about the doctrine of legislative acquiescence, it is correct that we are nevertheless bound by St Joseph’s. 2021See Associated Builders & Contractors v City of Lansing, 499 Mich. 177, 191-192 ; 880 NW2d 765 (2016), discussed later in this opinion. -4- 526; 697 NW2d 895 (2005). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In Re Apportionment of State Legislature—1982
green
1 sentence2018Given that it is much more difficult for the people to directly act on this topic—i.e., amend the Constitution—their failure to act sheds even less light on the matter. 167 See In re Apportionment of State Legislature—1982, 413 Mich at 116 . 47 commission—can be implemented. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Florida Ex Rel. Bondi v. United States Department of Health & Human Services
green
1 sentence2014See McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 , 757 n 22; 822 NW2d 747 (2012) (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting); Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28, 53-54 ; 732 NW2d 56 (2007) (MARILYN KELLY, J., dissenting). 6 evade it will likely “come to regret it.” US Dep’t of Health & Human Servs, 780 F Supp 2d at 1316 , quoting Badger Catholic, Inc v Walsh, 620 F3d 775, 782 (CA 7, 2010).5 “If it were otherwise, a . . . declaratory judgment would serve no useful purpose as a final determination of rights.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Karaczewski v. Farbman Stein & Co.
green
2 sentences2014See McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 , 757 n 22; 822 NW2d 747 (2012) (Marilyn Kelly, J., dissenting); Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28, 53-54 ; 732 NW2d 56 (2007) (Marilyn Kelly, J., dissenting). 2014See McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730 , 757 n 22; 822 NW2d 747 (2012) (Marilyn Kelly, J., dissenting); Karaczewski v Farbman Stein & Co, 478 Mich 28, 53-54 ; 732 NW2d 56 (2007) (Marilyn Kelly, J., dissenting). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Van Dorpel v. Haven-Busch Co.
green
2 sentences2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet 2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Sheppard v. Michigan National Bank
green
2 sentences2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet 2012The dissent’s argument that this conclusion satisfies the intent of the Legislature is, of course, belied by the actual words chosen by the Legislature. 31 See, e.g., Rowland, 477 Mich at 209 n 8; Donajkowski v Alpena Power Co, 460 Mich 243, 258-261 ; 596 NW2d 574 (1999), quoting Rogers v Detroit, 457 Mich 125, 163-166 ; 579 NW2d 840 (1998) (TAYLOR, J., dissenting); Autio v Proksch Constr Co, 377 Mich 517, 527-539 ; 141 NW2d 81 (1966); Van Dorpel v Haven-Busch Co, 350 Mich 135 , 145- 19 legislative intent not by anything that the Legislature actually enacts, but by the absence of action.32 Yet | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Robinson v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste 2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Boyd v. W G Wade Shows
green
1 sentence2007Therefore, legislative acquiescence to the Roberts decision is not as clear as the majority suggests. [ Id. at 536, 505 N.W.2d 544 .] Moreover, after Boyd, this Court strongly criticized the doctrine of legislative acquiescence. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Nawrocki v. MacOmb County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2007As we noted in Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143 , 177-178 n 33; 615 NW2d 702 (2000), the legislative acquiescence doctrine “ ‘is a highly disfavored doctrine of statutory construction; sound principles of statutory construction require that Michigan courts determine the Legislature’s intent from its words, not from its silence.’ ” (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted.) Justice Kelly’s professed fealty to stare decisis apparently would not prevent her from overruling sub silentio all the cases where we rejected the legislative acquiescence doctrine. 2007As we noted in Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143 , 177-178 n 33; 615 NW2d 702 (2000), the legislative acquiescence doctrine “ ‘is a highly disfavored doctrine of statutory construction; sound principles of statutory construction require that Michigan courts determine the Legislature’s intent from its words, not from its silence.’ ” (Citation omitted; emphasis omitted.) Justice Kelly’s professed fealty to stare decisis apparently would not prevent her from overruling sub silentio all the cases where we rejected the legislative acquiescence doctrine. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Grimes v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste 2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste 2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Hanson v. Mecosta County Road Commissioners
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste 2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Robertson v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste 2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste | 1 | 2007–2007 |
People v. Borchard-Ruhland
green
2 sentences2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste 2007See, e.g., Donajkowski; People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 286 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999); Robinson v Detroit, 462 Mich 439,466 ; 613 NW2d 307 (2000); Nawrocki, supra; Hanson v Mecosta Co Rd Comm’rs, 465 Mich 492, 502 ; 638 NW2d 396 (2002); Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732, 760 ; 641 NW2d 567 (2002); People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 506-507 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); Neal v Wilkes, 470 Mich 661 , 668 n 11; 685 NW2d 648 (2004); Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 592 ; 702 NW2d 539 (2005); Grimes v Dep’t of Transportation, 475 Mich 72, 84 ; 715 NW2d 275 (2006); People v Anste | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Paschke v. Retool Industries green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Luttrell v. Department of Corrections green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Lamb v. Bureau of Pardons and Paroles green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| People v. Dunn green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| United States v. Moore green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
| Boyer-Campbell Co. v. Fry green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.