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.
22 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oliver v. Smithgreen2 sentences2017Ministerial-operational acts involve the execution or implementation of a decision and entail only minor decision-making.” Oliver, 290 Mich App at 689-690 (citations and quotation marks omitted). 2017Ministerial-operational acts involve the execution or implementation of a decision and entail only minor decision-making.” Oliver, 290 Mich App at 689-690 (citations and quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Seldon v. Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportationgreen2 sentences2013As this Court recently stated in Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427, 436 ; 824 NW2d 318 (2012), under MCR 7.203(A) and MCR 7.202(6)(a)(v), “this Court has jurisdiction to decide an appeal of right from an order denying governmental immunity under MCR 2.116(C)(7) or ‘denying a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) based on a claim of governmental immunity,’ but the appeal is limited to ‘the portion of the order with respect to which there is an appeal of right.’ ” However, the Seldon Court also recognized that “[i]n Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 2013As this Court recently stated in Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427, 436 ; 824 NW2d 318 (2012), under MCR 7.203(A) and MCR 7.202(6)(a)(v), “this Court has jurisdiction to decide an appeal of right from an order denying governmental immunity under MCR 2.116(C)(7) or ‘denying a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) based on a claim of governmental immunity,’ but the appeal is limited to ‘the portion of the order with respect to which there is an appeal of right.’ ” However, the Seldon Court also recognized that “[i]n Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App | 1 | 6 |
Electri-Tech, Inc. v. H F Campbell Co.green2 sentences2020See Electro-Tech, Inc v HF Campbell Co, 433 Mich 57 , 91 n 38; 445 NW2d 61 (1989); Wiggins v Burton, 291 Mich App 532 , 574 n 9; 805 NW2d 517 (2011). 2020See Electro-Tech, Inc v HF Campbell Co, 433 Mich 57 , 91 n 38; 445 NW2d 61 (1989); Wiggins v Burton, 291 Mich App 532 , 574 n 9; 805 NW2d 517 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Walsh v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2013As this Court recently stated in Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427, 436 ; 824 NW2d 318 (2012), under MCR 7.203(A) and MCR 7.202(6)(a)(v), “this Court has jurisdiction to decide an appeal of right from an order denying governmental immunity under MCR 2.116(C)(7) or ‘denying a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) based on a claim of governmental immunity,’ but the appeal is limited to ‘the portion of the order with respect to which there is an appeal of right.’ ” However, the Seldon Court also recognized that “[i]n Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App 2013As this Court recently stated in Seldon v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 297 Mich App 427, 436 ; 824 NW2d 318 (2012), under MCR 7.203(A) and MCR 7.202(6)(a)(v), “this Court has jurisdiction to decide an appeal of right from an order denying governmental immunity under MCR 2.116(C)(7) or ‘denying a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10) based on a claim of governmental immunity,’ but the appeal is limited to ‘the portion of the order with respect to which there is an appeal of right.’ ” However, the Seldon Court also recognized that “[i]n Walsh v Taylor, 263 Mich App | 4 | 2012–2026 |
Newton v. Michigan State Police
red
2 sentences2004Similarly, the panel in Newton, supra, stated: “The plain language of these court rules, interpreted in a common-sense fashion, lead us to conclude that this exception applies only to situations where the denial of summary disposition is directly based on a finding that the moving party is not entitled to government[al] immunity and not to a situation where, although a claim of governmental immunity has been asserted, the trial court denies a summary disposition motion because the party opposing summary disposition has stated a sufficient factual case to avoid summary disposition — in other wo 2004Similarly, the panel in Newton, supra, stated: “The plain language of these court rules, interpreted in a common-sense fashion, lead us to conclude that this exception applies only to situations where the denial of summary disposition is directly based on a finding that the moving party is not entitled to government[al] immunity and not to a situation where, although a claim of governmental immunity has been asserted, the trial court denies a summary disposition motion because the party opposing summary disposition has stated a sufficient factual case to avoid summary disposition — in other wo | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.
yellow
2 sentences1988McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65, 77 ; 247 NW2d 521 (1976); Ross v Consumers Powers Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 621 , *160 n 34; 363 NW2d 641 (1984); Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223, 261 ; 393 NW2d 847 (1986). 1988McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65, 77 ; 247 NW2d 521 (1976); Ross v Consumers Powers Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 621 , *160 n 34; 363 NW2d 641 (1984); Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223, 261 ; 393 NW2d 847 (1986). | 2 | 1985–1988 |
Ford v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences1983In interpreting the scope of the exception provided for in these two cases, this Court held: "[A] cautious reading of these cases persuades us that at present only intentionally-created or continued nuisances in fact will defeat a claim of governmental immunity.” Ford v Detroit, 91 Mich App 333, 336 ; 283 NW2d 739 (1979). 1983In interpreting the scope of the exception provided for in these two cases, this Court held: "[A] cautious reading of these cases persuades us that at present only intentionally-created or continued nuisances in fact will defeat a claim of governmental immunity.” Ford v Detroit, 91 Mich App 333, 336 ; 283 NW2d 739 (1979). | 2 | 1982–1983 |
Gerzeski v. Department of State Highways
green
2 sentences1983Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 124 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978); Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978). 1983Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 124 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978); Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978). | 2 | 1982–1983 |
Rosario v. City of Lansing
green
2 sentences1983Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 124 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978); Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978). 1983Rosario v City of Lansing, 403 Mich 124 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978); Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978). | 2 | 1982–1983 |
Pierce v. City of Lansing
green
2 sentences2023In an appeal by right from an order denying a claim of governmental immunity, “this Court does not have the authority to consider issues beyond the portion of the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s claim of governmental immunity.” Pierce v Lansing, 265 Mich App 174, 182 ; 694 NW2d 65 (2005). 2023In an appeal by right from an order denying a claim of governmental immunity, “this Court does not have the authority to consider issues beyond the portion of the trial court’s order denying the defendant’s claim of governmental immunity.” Pierce v Lansing, 265 Mich App 174, 182 ; 694 NW2d 65 (2005). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Wiggins v. City of Burton
green
2 sentences2020See Electro-Tech, Inc v HF Campbell Co, 433 Mich 57 , 91 n 38; 445 NW2d 61 (1989); Wiggins v Burton, 291 Mich App 532 , 574 n 9; 805 NW2d 517 (2011). 2020See Electro-Tech, Inc v HF Campbell Co, 433 Mich 57 , 91 n 38; 445 NW2d 61 (1989); Wiggins v Burton, 291 Mich App 532 , 574 n 9; 805 NW2d 517 (2011). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lamkin v. Engram
green
2 sentences2020The Court gives the language of court rules their ‘plain and ordinary meaning.’ ” Lamkin v Engram, 295 Mich App 701, 709 ; 815 NW2d 793 (2012) (citation omitted). 2020The Court gives the language of court rules their ‘plain and ordinary meaning.’ ” Lamkin v Engram, 295 Mich App 701, 709 ; 815 NW2d 793 (2012) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Scameheorn v. Bucks
green
1 sentence1989Scameheorn, supra. We are also unpersuaded by plaintiffs’ argument that the mounds of snow should be deemed an intentional nuisance by which the claim of governmental immunity could be overcome. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Tobias v. Phelps
green
2 sentences1988Tobias v Phelps, 144 Mich App 272, 275-76 ; 375 NW2d 365 , lv den 424 Mich 859 (1985). 1988Tobias v Phelps, 144 Mich App 272, 275-76 ; 375 NW2d 365 , lv den 424 Mich 859 (1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Smith v. Department of Public Health
green
2 sentences1988Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540, 591 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987); Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), supra, p 621, n 34 (1984). 1988Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540, 591 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987); Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), supra, p 621, n 34 (1984). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Hyde v. University of Michigan Board of Regents
green
2 sentences1988McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65, 77 ; 247 NW2d 521 (1976); Ross v Consumers Powers Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 621 , *160 n 34; 363 NW2d 641 (1984); Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223, 261 ; 393 NW2d 847 (1986). 1988McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65, 77 ; 247 NW2d 521 (1976); Ross v Consumers Powers Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 621 , *160 n 34; 363 NW2d 641 (1984); Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223, 261 ; 393 NW2d 847 (1986). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
McCann v. Michigan
green
2 sentences1988McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65, 77 ; 247 NW2d 521 (1976); Ross v Consumers Powers Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 621 , *160 n 34; 363 NW2d 641 (1984); Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223, 261 ; 393 NW2d 847 (1986). 1988McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65, 77 ; 247 NW2d 521 (1976); Ross v Consumers Powers Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 621 , *160 n 34; 363 NW2d 641 (1984); Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich 223, 261 ; 393 NW2d 847 (1986). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.