20 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Locricchio v. Evening News Ass'ngreen2 sentences2016Locricchio v Evening News Ass’n, 438 Mich 84 , 109 & n 13; 476 NW2d 112 (1991); Grace, 253 Mich App at 363 . 2016Locricchio v Evening News Ass’n, 438 Mich 84 , 109 & n 13; 476 NW2d 112 (1991); Grace, 253 Mich App at 363 . | 3 | 4 |
Schumacher v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences2016The law of the case doctrine’s rationale is to maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single lawsuit; the doctrine does not limit an appellate court’s power but, rather, is a discretionary rule of practice. [Schumacher v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 275 Mich App 121, 128 ; 737 NW2d 782 (2007) (citation omitted).] This Court’s prior statements do not create the law of the case as they addressed a separate and different argument by Charron. 2016The law of the case doctrine’s rationale is to maintain consistency and avoid reconsideration of matters once decided during the course of a single lawsuit; the doctrine does not limit an appellate court’s power but, rather, is a discretionary rule of practice. [Schumacher v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 275 Mich App 121, 128 ; 737 NW2d 782 (2007) (citation omitted).] This Court’s prior statements do not create the law of the case as they addressed a separate and different argument by Charron. | 1 | 6 |
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'ngreen1 sentence2016See US Fidelity, 484 Mich at 14 . | 1 | 1 |
Hilton v. Guyotgreen1 sentence2011See Hilton, 159 US at 163-164 (explaining that “ ‘[cjomity,’ in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other”); see also Lieberthal v Glens Falls Indemnity Co of Glens Falls, 316 Mich 37, 54 ; 24 NW2d 547 (1946) (BUTZEL, C.J., dissenting) (noting that when “ ‘comity’ enters ... the discretion of the forum is greater”). | 1 | 1 |
Lieberthal v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co.green2 sentences2011See Hilton, 159 US at 163-164 (explaining that “ ‘[cjomity,’ in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other”); see also Lieberthal v Glens Falls Indemnity Co of Glens Falls, 316 Mich 37, 54 ; 24 NW2d 547 (1946) (BUTZEL, C.J., dissenting) (noting that when “ ‘comity’ enters ... the discretion of the forum is greater”). 2011See Hilton, 159 US at 163-164 (explaining that “ ‘[cjomity,’ in the legal sense, is neither a matter of absolute obligation, on the one hand, nor of mere courtesy and good will, upon the other”); see also Lieberthal v Glens Falls Indemnity Co of Glens Falls, 316 Mich 37, 54 ; 24 NW2d 547 (1946) (BUTZEL, C.J., dissenting) (noting that when “ ‘comity’ enters ... the discretion of the forum is greater”). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ellisgreen2 sentences2010Further, this construction is in accord with the rule of statutory construction providing that where “‘a statute contains a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision controls.’”10 When read together, the mandatory standard of MCL 500.1205 controls over the discretionary standard of MCL 500.1239 because it is more specific: MCL 500.1205 exclusively addresses the issuance of resident insurance producer licenses, whereas MCL 500.1239 includes language regarding probation, suspension, issuance of civil fines, revocation of insurance licenses, and issuance of 10 Jones v Ene 2010Further, this construction is in accord with the rule of statutory construction providing that where “‘a statute contains a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision controls.’”10 When read together, the mandatory standard of MCL 500.1205 controls over the discretionary standard of MCL 500.1239 because it is more specific: MCL 500.1205 exclusively addresses the issuance of resident insurance producer licenses, whereas MCL 500.1239 includes language regarding probation, suspension, issuance of civil fines, revocation of insurance licenses, and issuance of 10 Jones v Ene | 1 | 1 |
Knott v. Langloisgreen2 sentences1974In State v Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 916 ; 500 P2d 209, 217 (1972), the Idaho Supreme Court, confronted *242 with a challenge similar to the one advanced here, molded the criteria on the basis of decisions in other jurisdictions: "[T]he state courts, when the discretionary waiver statutes of their respective jurisdictions are subjected to constitutional challenge, must fashion the controlling criteria." [13] In Knott v Langlois, 102 RI 517, 523; 231 A2d 767, 770 (1967), the Rhode Island Supreme Court established standards through rule making. 1974In State v Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 916 ; 500 P2d 209, 217 (1972), the Idaho Supreme Court, confronted with a challenge similar to the one advanced here, molded the criteria on the basis of decisions in other jurisdictions: "[T]he state courts, when the discretionary waiver statutes of their respective jurisdictions are subjected to constitutional challenge, must fashion the controlling criteria.” 13 In Knott v Langlois, 102 RI 517, 523; 231 A2d 767, 770 (1967), the Rhode Island Supreme Court established standards through rule making. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gibbsgreen2 sentences1974In State v Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 916 ; 500 P2d 209, 217 (1972), the Idaho Supreme Court, confronted *242 with a challenge similar to the one advanced here, molded the criteria on the basis of decisions in other jurisdictions: "[T]he state courts, when the discretionary waiver statutes of their respective jurisdictions are subjected to constitutional challenge, must fashion the controlling criteria." [13] In Knott v Langlois, 102 RI 517, 523; 231 A2d 767, 770 (1967), the Rhode Island Supreme Court established standards through rule making. 1974In State v Gibbs, 94 Idaho 908, 916 ; 500 P2d 209, 217 (1972), the Idaho Supreme Court, confronted *242 with a challenge similar to the one advanced here, molded the criteria on the basis of decisions in other jurisdictions: "[T]he state courts, when the discretionary waiver statutes of their respective jurisdictions are subjected to constitutional challenge, must fashion the controlling criteria." [13] In Knott v Langlois, 102 RI 517, 523; 231 A2d 767, 770 (1967), the Rhode Island Supreme Court established standards through rule making. | 1 | 1 |
Burg v. B & B ENTERPRISES, INC.green1 sentence1972Our initial guidance is gained from the Court’s statement in Burg v B & B Enterprises, Inc, 2 Mich App 496, 500 (1966), that: " * * * We believe that the language of GCR 1963, 118.1, ’leave shall be freely given when justice so requires’ imposes a limitation on the discretion of the court necessitating a Ending that justice will not be served by the amendment.” 1 (Emphasis added.) The Court in Grove v Story Oldsmobile, Inc, supra, reiterated this limitation and offered two factors to be considered by trial judges in exercising their discretion: (1) surprise and (2) disadvantage to the adverse | 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. Robinson
green
2 sentences2018Although the doctrine is not inflexible, People v Phillips (After Second Remand), 227 Mich App 28, 33 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997), and is considered “a discretionary rule of practice,” Kalamazoo v Dep’t of Corrections, 229 Mich App 132, 135-136 ; 580 NW2d 475 (1998), defendant has not shown that we should decline to apply the doctrine to avoid injustice, such as where the prior determination was clearly erroneous or the facts on which the prior decision was based have changed. 2018Although the doctrine is not inflexible, People v Phillips (After Second Remand), 227 Mich App 28, 33 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997), and is considered “a discretionary rule of practice,” Kalamazoo v Dep’t of Corrections, 229 Mich App 132, 135-136 ; 580 NW2d 475 (1998), defendant has not shown that we should decline to apply the doctrine to avoid injustice, such as where the prior determination was clearly erroneous or the facts on which the prior decision was based have changed. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
People v. Herrera
green
2 sentences2018People v Herrera (On Remand), 204 Mich App 333, 340 ; 514 NW2d 543 (1994). 2018People v Herrera (On Remand), 204 Mich App 333, 340 ; 514 NW2d 543 (1994). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
City of Kalamazoo v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2018Although the doctrine is not inflexible, People v Phillips (After Second Remand), 227 Mich App 28, 33 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997), and is considered “a discretionary rule of practice,” Kalamazoo v Dep’t of Corrections, 229 Mich App 132, 135-136 ; 580 NW2d 475 (1998), defendant has not shown that we should decline to apply the doctrine to avoid injustice, such as where the prior determination was clearly erroneous or the facts on which the prior decision was based have changed. 2018Although the doctrine is not inflexible, People v Phillips (After Second Remand), 227 Mich App 28, 33 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997), and is considered “a discretionary rule of practice,” Kalamazoo v Dep’t of Corrections, 229 Mich App 132, 135-136 ; 580 NW2d 475 (1998), defendant has not shown that we should decline to apply the doctrine to avoid injustice, such as where the prior determination was clearly erroneous or the facts on which the prior decision was based have changed. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co.
green
2 sentences1996United States v United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co, 339 US 186, 198-199 ; 70 S Ct 537 ; 94 L Ed 750 (1950); Locricchio v Evening News Ass’n, 438 Mich 84, 109, n 13 ; 476 NW2d 112 (1991). 1996United States v United States Smelting, Refining & Mining Co, 339 US 186, 198-199 ; 70 S Ct 537 ; 94 L Ed 750 (1950); Locricchio v Evening News Ass’n, 438 Mich 84, 109, n 13 ; 476 NW2d 112 (1991). | 2 | 1995–1996 |
People v. Lane
green
1 sentence2025Id., ___ Mich ___; slip op at 2. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. State
green
2 sentences2018“The law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice.” Int’l Union v Michigan, 211 Mich App 20, 24 ; 535 NW2d 210 (1995) (emphasis added). 2018“The law of the case doctrine is a discretionary rule of practice.” Int’l Union v Michigan, 211 Mich App 20, 24 ; 535 NW2d 210 (1995) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Grace v. Grace
green
1 sentence2016Locricchio v Evening News Ass’n, 438 Mich 84 , 109 & n 13; 476 NW2d 112 (1991); Grace, 253 Mich App at 363 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
International Business MacHines Corp. v. Department of Treasury
green
1 sentence2016The distinction we recognize today between the law-of-the-case doctrine and the rule of mandate, as implicated by the Supreme *353 Court’s explicit directive in Int’l Business Machines, 496 Mich at 645 , is further buttressed by the principles of the law-of-the-case doctrine, which is a discretionary doctrine that expresses the general practice of the courts and is not a limit on the power of the courts. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gebhardt v. O'ROURKE
green
2 sentences2010Further, this construction is in accord with the rule of statutory construction providing that where “‘a statute contains a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision controls.’”10 When read together, the mandatory standard of MCL 500.1205 controls over the discretionary standard of MCL 500.1239 because it is more specific: MCL 500.1205 exclusively addresses the issuance of resident insurance producer licenses, whereas MCL 500.1239 includes language regarding probation, suspension, issuance of civil fines, revocation of insurance licenses, and issuance of 10 Jones v Ene 2010Further, this construction is in accord with the rule of statutory construction providing that where “‘a statute contains a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision controls.’”10 When read together, the mandatory standard of MCL 500.1205 controls over the discretionary standard of MCL 500.1239 because it is more specific: MCL 500.1205 exclusively addresses the issuance of resident insurance producer licenses, whereas MCL 500.1239 includes language regarding probation, suspension, issuance of civil fines, revocation of insurance licenses, and issuance of 10 Jones v Ene | 1 | 2010–2010 |
William Miller v. Allstate Ins Co
green
1 sentence2010This Court has further explained that “[i]n order to determine which provision is truly more specific and, hence, controlling, we consider which provision applies to the more narrow realm of circumstances, and which to the more broad realm.” Miller v Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich 601, 613 ; 751 NW2d 463 (2008). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Jones v. Enertel, Inc
green
2 sentences2010Further, this construction is in accord with the rule of statutory construction providing that where “‘a statute contains a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision controls.’”10 When read together, the mandatory standard of MCL 500.1205 controls over the discretionary standard of MCL 500.1239 because it is more specific: MCL 500.1205 exclusively addresses the issuance of resident insurance producer licenses, whereas MCL 500.1239 includes language regarding probation, suspension, issuance of civil fines, revocation of insurance licenses, and issuance of 10 Jones v Ene 2010Further, this construction is in accord with the rule of statutory construction providing that where “‘a statute contains a general provision and a specific provision, the specific provision controls.’”10 When read together, the mandatory standard of MCL 500.1205 controls over the discretionary standard of MCL 500.1239 because it is more specific: MCL 500.1205 exclusively addresses the issuance of resident insurance producer licenses, whereas MCL 500.1239 includes language regarding probation, suspension, issuance of civil fines, revocation of insurance licenses, and issuance of 10 Jones v Ene | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Schipani v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1982In Schipani v Ford Motor Co, 102 Mich App 606, 621-623 ; 302 NW2d 307 (1981), this Court referred to decisions from other jurisdictions in discussing the expectation prerequisite. 1982In Schipani v Ford Motor Co, 102 Mich App 606, 621-623 ; 302 NW2d 307 (1981), this Court referred to decisions from other jurisdictions in discussing the expectation prerequisite. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
LaBar v. Cooper
green
1 sentence1972LaBar v Cooper, 376 Mich 401 (1965); Grove v Story Oldsmobile, Inc, supra; Fred Gibbs, Inc v Old Colony Insurance Co, supra. This discretionary standard can be reviewed for abuse only by considering the guidelines established by prior cases. | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.