20 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1936–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
McCORMICK v. CARRIERgreen2 sentences2026When considering this first prong of the serious impairment analysis, the focus is on “whether the impairment is objectively manifested, not the injury or its symptoms.” Id. at 197 . 2026Notably, the disputed fact does not need to be outcome determinative in order to be material, but it should be “significant or essential to the issue or matter at hand.” [McCormick, 487 Mich at 193-94 , quoting Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed.) (defining “material fact”).] A. OBJECTIVELY MANIFESTED IMPAIRMENTS Plaintiffs argue that the trial court should not have considered whether their impairments were objectively manifested because defendants did not argue this first prong of the serious impairment analysis as a basis for summary disposition in their motion. | 1 | 11 |
Kreiner v. Fischerred2 sentences2017As stated in the Kreiner dissent, “[t]he Legislature recognized that what is important to one is not important to all[;] a brief impairment may be devastating whereas a near permanent impairment may have little effect.” Kreiner [v Fischer], 471 Mich [180,] 145, 683 NW2d 611 [2004] (Cavanagh, J., dissenting). 2017As stated in the Kreiner dissent, “[t]he Legislature recognized that what is important to one is not important to all[;] a brief impairment may be devastating whereas a near permanent impairment may have little effect.” Kreiner [v Fischer], 471 Mich [180,] 145, 683 NW2d 611 [2004] (Cavanagh, J., dissenting). | 1 | 3 |
People v. Holtzergreen2 sentences2016See People v Holtzer, 255 Mich App 478, 493 ; 660 NW2d 405 (2003) (“While a delay that impairs the defense must be taken most seriously, we do not equate an enhancement of the prosecution's case with the impairment of the defense.”) (citation omitted). 2016See People v Holtzer, 255 Mich App 478, 493 ; 660 NW2d 405 (2003) (“While a delay that impairs the defense must be taken most seriously, we do not equate an enhancement of the prosecution's case with the impairment of the defense.”) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Department of Environmental Qualitygreen2 sentences2006In this case, the trial court did not craft an impairment standard utilizing ILSA and the WPA; rather it stated that the violations of ILSA and the WPA alone sufficed to establish a prima facie violation of MEPA. [70] In Preserve the Dunes, supra at 516-517, 684 N.W.2d 847 , our Supreme Court noted that the statutes under consideration prohibited the DEQ from issuing a permit if the applicant's proposed conduct was likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources, but still determined that the permit statutes were not themselves designed to be pollution standard 2006In Preserve the Dunes, supra at 516-517, our Supreme Court noted that the statutes under consideration prohibited the DEQ from issuing a permit if the applicant’s proposed conduct was likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources, but still determined that the permit statutes were not themselves designed to be pollution control standards. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2003While a delay that impairs the defense must be taken most seriously, Collins, supra at 694 , we do not equate an enhancement of the prosecution’s case with the impairment of the defense. *494 This does not, for example, involve an issue of the reliability of eye-witness identification that may degrade over time, or the loss of a defense witness. 2003See Collins, supra at 694-695 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lawrence v. Deboer
neutral
2 sentences1936Lawrence v. DeBoer, 273 Mich. 172 ; Simons v. Groesbeck, 268 Mich. 495 . 1936Lawrence v. DeBoer , 273 Mich. 172 ; Simons v. Groesbeck , 268 Mich. 495 . | 2 | 1936–1936 |
Simons v. Groesbeck
neutral
2 sentences1936Lawrence v. DeBoer, 273 Mich. 172 ; Simons v. Groesbeck, 268 Mich. 495 . 1936Lawrence v. DeBoer , 273 Mich. 172 ; Simons v. Groesbeck , 268 Mich. 495 . | 2 | 1936–1936 |
Lindsey Patrick v. Virginia B Turkelson
green
1 sentence2022“Although mere subjective complaints of pain -5- and suffering are insufficient to show impairment, evidence of a physical basis for that pain and suffering may be introduced to show that the impairment is objectively manifested.” Patrick, 322 Mich App at 607 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Ray v. Mason County Drain Commissioner
green
2 sentences2006Rather, the court expressly stated its understanding that this case involves impairment and not pollution. 1 The trial court’s opinion also demonstrates that it recognized its duty to develop a judicial common law of environmental quality and make detailed findings of fact under Ray v Mason Co Drain Comm’r, 393 Mich 294 ; 224 NW2d 883 (1975), and that it referred to the ILSA and the WPA statutes for guidance in developing an impairment standard. 2006Rather, the court expressly stated its understanding that this case involves impairment and not pollution. 1 The trial court’s opinion also demonstrates that it recognized its duty to develop a judicial common law of environmental quality and make detailed findings of fact under Ray v Mason Co Drain Comm’r, 393 Mich 294 ; 224 NW2d 883 (1975), and that it referred to the ILSA and the WPA statutes for guidance in developing an impairment standard. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Nemeth v. Abonmarche Development, Inc
green
2 sentences2006Furthermore, while the factors set forth in City of Portage, supra at 282 , 355 N.W.2d 913 , might also serve as a guide to the establishment of an impairment standard, we remind the trial court that these factors are not necessarily applicable to every case; rather, "each alleged MEPA violation must be evaluated by the trial court using the ... standard appropriate to the particular alleged violation." Nemeth supra at 35 , 576 N.W.2d 641 . 2006Furthermore, while the factors set forth in City of Portage, supra at 282 , might also serve as a guide to the establishment of an impairment standard, we remind the trial court that these factors are not necessarily applicable to every case; rather, “each alleged MEPA violation must be evaluated by the trial court using the... standard appropriate to the particular alleged violation.” Nemeth, supra at 35 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
City of Portage v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission
green
2 sentences2006Furthermore, while the factors set forth in City of Portage, supra at 282 , 355 N.W.2d 913 , might also serve as a guide to the establishment of an impairment standard, we remind the trial court that these factors are not necessarily applicable to every case; rather, "each alleged MEPA violation must be evaluated by the trial court using the ... standard appropriate to the particular alleged violation." Nemeth supra at 35 , 576 N.W.2d 641 . 2006Furthermore, while the factors set forth in City of Portage, supra at 282 , might also serve as a guide to the establishment of an impairment standard, we remind the trial court that these factors are not necessarily applicable to every case; rather, “each alleged MEPA violation must be evaluated by the trial court using the... standard appropriate to the particular alleged violation.” Nemeth, supra at 35 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Bott v. Natural Resources Commission
green
1 sentence2006The Court explained that, "[a]s previously discussed, DEQ determinations of permit eligibility under §§ 63702(1) and 63704(2) are unrelated to whether the applicant's proposed activities on the property violate MEPA." Id. at 519, 684 N.W.2d 847 . [71] Because of our holding, we need not address whether defendant should have been required to obtain a permit under ILSA before beginning to pump water from Sanctuary Springs. [72] According to his affidavit, Alguire is a registered forester and has participated in lumbering activities in Maine. [73] Plaintiffs also erroneously argue, relying on Bot | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.