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.
23 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1886–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Department of Natural Resources v. Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Incgreen2 sentences2018See Dep’t of Natural Resources v Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc, 472 Mich 359, 385 ; 699 NW2d 272 (2005). 2018See Dep’t of Natural Resources v Carmody-Lahti Real Estate, Inc, 472 Mich 359, 385 ; 699 NW2d 272 (2005). | 4 | 4 |
Griffin v. Johnsongreen2 sentences1934Dec. 200 ); First National Bank of Constantine v. Jacobs, 50 Mich. 340 ; neither can the abandonment or waiver of the homestead right or homestead by one entitled to enjoy the same affect the interest of any other equally entitled thereto: Showers v. Robinson, supra, 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87, 92; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 .” The language employed in the first deed expressly limited the easement granted to defendant power company. 1886Bank Constantine v. Jacobs, 50 Mich. 340 ; neither can the abandonment or waiver of the homestead right or homestead by one entitled to enjoy the same affect the interest of any other equally entitled thereto: Showers v. Robinson, 43 Mich. 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87 , 92 ; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 . | 1 | 3 |
Berger v. Bergergreen2 sentences2026See Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 712 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008) (“A party abandons a claim when it fails to make a meaningful argument in support of its position.”). 2026See Berger v Berger, 277 Mich App 700, 712 ; 747 NW2d 336 (2008) (“A party abandons a claim when it fails to make a meaningful argument in support of its position.”). | 1 | 1 |
Peterson Novelties, Inc v. City of Berkleygreen2 sentences2026See, e.g., Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1, 14 ; 672 NW2d 351 (2003) (“An appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.”) (citations omitted). 2026See, e.g., Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1, 14 ; 672 NW2d 351 (2003) (“An appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority.”) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Zeeland Farm Services, Inc v. Jbl Enterprises, Incgreen1 sentence2025See Zeeland Farm Servs, Inc, 219 Mich App at 196 (noting obligation to introduce evidence in support of contractual attorney fees at trial). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kellygreen1 sentence2016See Kelly, 231 Mich App at 640-641 . | 1 | 1 |
Braverman v. Grangergreen2 sentences2014See Braverman v Granger, 303 Mich App 587, 609 ; 844 NW2d 485 (2014). 2014See Braverman v Granger, 303 Mich App 587, 609 ; 844 NW2d 485 (2014). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Beaversgreen2 sentences1991Because we have established precedent to the contrary, and because no compelling reasons have been advanced justifying this abandonment of the principle of stare decisis, I dissent. i The arguments advanced by the majority are the same as those rejected by the Court when People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554 ; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), was decided. 1991Because we have established precedent to the contrary, and because no compelling reasons have been advanced justifying this abandonment of the principle of stare decisis, I dissent. i The arguments advanced by the majority are the same as those rejected by the Court when People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554 ; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), was decided. | 1 | 1 |
Nieting v. Blondellgreen2 sentences1976"The reasons for the creation of the state’s tort immunity are now obscured. * * * Because no compelling reasons have been presented in support of its continued existence, we have concluded that the time has come for the abandonment of the rule.” Nieting v Blondell, —Minn—; 235 NW2d 597, 601 (1975). 1976"The reasons for the creation of the state's tort immunity are now obscured. * * * Because no compelling reasons have been presented in support of its continued existence, we have concluded that the time has come for the abandonment of the rule." Nieting v Blondell, ___ Minn ___; 235 NW2d 597, 601 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Steger v. Blanchardgreen1 sentence1968See, also, Steger v. Blanchard (1958), 353 Mich 140, 144 . [6] The only jurisdiction recently to have upheld the automatic application of lex loci delicti is Maryland, where the court of appeals considered the abandonment of the rule to be for the legislature. | 1 | 1 |
Nordman v. Calhoungreen2 sentences1956See, also, in this regard, Nordman v. Calhoun, 332 Mich 460, 465 . 1956See, also, in this regard, Nordman v. Calhoun, 332 Mich 460, 465 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
First National Bank v. Jacobs
neutral
2 sentences1934Dec. 200 ); First National Bank of Constantine v. Jacobs, 50 Mich. 340 ; neither can the abandonment or waiver of the homestead right or homestead by one entitled to enjoy the same affect the interest of any other equally entitled thereto: Showers v. Robinson, supra, 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87, 92; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 .” The language employed in the first deed expressly limited the easement granted to defendant power company. 1908Bank of Constantine v. Jacobs, 50 Mich. 340 ; neither can the abandonment or waiver of the homestead right or homestead by one entitled to enjoy the same affect the interest of any other equally entitled thereto. | 3 | 1886–1934 |
Allen v. . Shields, Adm'r. .
green
2 sentences1934Dec. 200 ); First National Bank of Constantine v. Jacobs, 50 Mich. 340 ; neither can the abandonment or waiver of the homestead right or homestead by one entitled to enjoy the same affect the interest of any other equally entitled thereto: Showers v. Robinson, supra, 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87, 92; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 .” The language employed in the first deed expressly limited the easement granted to defendant power company. 1886Bank Constantine v. Jacobs, 50 Mich. 340 ; neither can the abandonment or waiver of the homestead right or homestead by one entitled to enjoy the same affect the interest of any other equally entitled thereto: Showers v. Robinson, 43 Mich. 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87 , 92 ; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 . | 3 | 1886–1934 |
People v. Moldenhauer
green
2 sentences2001People v Moldenhauer, 210 Mich App 158, 159-160 ; 533 NW2d 9 (1995). 2001People v Moldenhauer, 210 Mich App 158, 159-160 ; 533 NW2d 9 (1995). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Yarrick v. Village of Kent City
green
2 sentences1998The apparent incongruity between these two statements led the Court of Appeals in Yarrick v Village of Kent City, 180 Mich App 410, 414 ; 447 NW2d 803 (1989), vacated and remanded for reconsideration regarding a different issue 435 Mich 866 (1990), (On Remand) 189 Mich App 627 ; 473 NW2d 774 (1991), to state: Although the Reardon Court’s statement to the effect that Jolly clarified that the duty to maintain safe public places related to buildings and the immediately adjacent premises could be read to indicate that the building exception continues to apply to the immediately adjacent premises, 1998The apparent incongruity between these two statements led the Court of Appeals in Yarrick v Village of Kent City, 180 Mich App 410, 414 ; 447 NW2d 803 (1989), vacated and remanded for reconsideration regarding a different issue 435 Mich 866 (1990), (On Remand) 189 Mich App 627 ; 473 NW2d 774 (1991), to state: Although the Reardon Court’s statement to the effect that Jolly clarified that the duty to maintain safe public places related to buildings and the immediately adjacent premises could be read to indicate that the building exception continues to apply to the immediately adjacent premises, | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Yarrick v. Village of Kent City
green
2 sentences1998The apparent incongruity between these two statements led the Court of Appeals in Yarrick v Village of Kent City, 180 Mich App 410, 414 ; 447 NW2d 803 (1989), vacated and remanded for reconsideration regarding a different issue 435 Mich 866 (1990), (On Remand) 189 Mich App 627 ; 473 NW2d 774 (1991), to state: Although the Reardon Court’s statement to the effect that Jolly clarified that the duty to maintain safe public places related to buildings and the immediately adjacent premises could be read to indicate that the building exception continues to apply to the immediately adjacent premises, 1998The apparent incongruity between these two statements led the Court of Appeals in Yarrick v Village of Kent City, 180 Mich App 410, 414 ; 447 NW2d 803 (1989), vacated and remanded for reconsideration regarding a different issue 435 Mich 866 (1990), (On Remand) 189 Mich App 627 ; 473 NW2d 774 (1991), to state: Although the Reardon Court’s statement to the effect that Jolly clarified that the duty to maintain safe public places related to buildings and the immediately adjacent premises could be read to indicate that the building exception continues to apply to the immediately adjacent premises, | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Greenfield Construction Co. v. Department of State Highways
green
2 sentences1996Greenfield Construction Co v State Hwy Dep’t, 402 Mich 172 ; 261 NW2d 718 (1978). 12 Justice Coleman’s concurrence expressed her concerns with some of her brethren advocating an abandonment of standard specifications for state contracts: [A]nalysis would force state agencies either to discard standard specifications or move to adopt them as rales under the APA. 1996Greenfield Construction Co v State Hwy Dep’t, 402 Mich 172 ; 261 NW2d 718 (1978). 12 Justice Coleman’s concurrence expressed her concerns with some of her brethren advocating an abandonment of standard specifications for state contracts: [A]nalysis would force state agencies either to discard standard specifications or move to adopt them as rales under the APA. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. McIntyre
green
2 sentences1985Cf., People v Knoll, 137 Mich App 701, 702-703 ; 358 NW2d 926 (1984); People v McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 664-665 ; 254 NW2d 603 (1977). 1985Cf., People v Knoll, 137 Mich App 701, 702-703 ; 358 NW2d 926 (1984); People v McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 664-665 ; 254 NW2d 603 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Knoll
neutral
2 sentences1985Cf., People v Knoll, 137 Mich App 701, 702-703 ; 358 NW2d 926 (1984); People v McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 664-665 ; 254 NW2d 603 (1977). 1985Cf., People v Knoll, 137 Mich App 701, 702-703 ; 358 NW2d 926 (1984); People v McIntyre, 74 Mich App 661, 664-665 ; 254 NW2d 603 (1977). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
White v. King
green
2 sentences1968White v. King (1966), 244 Md 348 ( 223 A2d 763 ). 1968White v. King (1966), 244 Md 348 ( 223 A2d 763 ). | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Bay Trust Co. v. Agricultural Life Ins.
green
1 sentence1954Co., 279 Mich 248 , wherein we said: “ ‘It is elementary that the rules of common sense shall apply to the construction of statutes.’ ” It is significant that the statute contains no provision requiring a published notice so that the public might be informed of the proposed meeting, but is confined to a 10-day notice to the members of the board. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Sheardy v. Baker
neutral
1 sentence1954The court believes also that the delay in the starting of this action by the plaintiff amounts to an abandonment of their claim.” The rules in such cases were recently restated in Sheardy v. Baker, 323 Mich 364 , to which reference is made without quoting therefrom. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Israelite House of David v. Hansel
neutral
1 sentence1939Israelite House of David v. Hansel, 227 Mich. 351 . | 1 | 1939–1939 |
Showers v. Robinson
green
1 sentence1934Dec. 200 ); First National Bank of Constantine v. Jacobs, 50 Mich. 340 ; neither can the abandonment or waiver of the homestead right or homestead by one entitled to enjoy the same affect the interest of any other equally entitled thereto: Showers v. Robinson, supra, 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87, 92; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 .” The language employed in the first deed expressly limited the easement granted to defendant power company. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
Maatta v. Kippola
green
1 sentence1908Showers v. Robinson, 43 Mich. 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87, 92 ; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 .” See, also, Maatta v. Kippola, 102 Mich. 116 ; Sammon v. Wood, 107 Mich. 506 ; Gadsby v. Monroe, 115 Mich. 282 ; Rogers v. Day, 115 Mich. 664 . | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Sammon v. Wood
green
1 sentence1908Showers v. Robinson, 43 Mich. 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87, 92 ; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 .” See, also, Maatta v. Kippola, 102 Mich. 116 ; Sammon v. Wood, 107 Mich. 506 ; Gadsby v. Monroe, 115 Mich. 282 ; Rogers v. Day, 115 Mich. 664 . | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Gadsby v. Monroe
green
1 sentence1908Showers v. Robinson, 43 Mich. 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87, 92 ; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 .” See, also, Maatta v. Kippola, 102 Mich. 116 ; Sammon v. Wood, 107 Mich. 506 ; Gadsby v. Monroe, 115 Mich. 282 ; Rogers v. Day, 115 Mich. 664 . | 1 | 1908–1908 |
Rogers v. Day
neutral
1 sentence1908Showers v. Robinson, 43 Mich. 513 ; Griffin v. Johnson, 37 Mich. 87, 92 ; Allen v. Shields, 72 N. C. 504 .” See, also, Maatta v. Kippola, 102 Mich. 116 ; Sammon v. Wood, 107 Mich. 506 ; Gadsby v. Monroe, 115 Mich. 282 ; Rogers v. Day, 115 Mich. 664 . | 1 | 1908–1908 |
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.