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.
18 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wescott v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2024“A ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or ad- justment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Wescott v Civil Serv Comm, 298 Mich App 158, 162 ; 825 NW2d 674 (2012). 2024“A ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or ad- justment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Wescott v Civil Serv Comm, 298 Mich App 158, 162 ; 825 NW2d 674 (2012). | 1 | 15 |
William R Henderson v. Civil Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2025“A ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Henderson, 321 Mich App at 44 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021Courts review de novo questions of law, including whether an agency’s action complied with a statute. [Natural Resources Defense Council v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 300 Mich App 79, 87-88 ; 832 NW2d 288 (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Further, “[a] ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Henderson v Civil Serv Comm, 321 Mich App 25, 44 ; 913 NW2d 665 (2017) (quotation mar | 1 | 2 |
Bundo v. City of Walled Lakegreen2 sentences2019“A ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Westcott v Civil Serv Comm, 298 Mich App 158, 162 ; 825 NW2d 674 (2012); see also Bundo v City of Walled Lake, 395 Mich 679 , 703 n 17; 238 NW2d 154 (1976). 2019“A ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Westcott v Civil Serv Comm, 298 Mich App 158, 162 ; 825 NW2d 674 (2012); see also Bundo v City of Walled Lake, 395 Mich 679 , 703 n 17; 238 NW2d 154 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Romulus v. Department of Environmental Quality
green
2 sentences2017“A ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Wescott, 298 Mich App at 162 , citing City of Romulus v Mich Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 260 Mich App 54 63-64 ; There is no question, and the parties do not dispute, that Michigan’s Constitution authorizes the CSC to undertake the classification action at issue here. 2012Id. at 63-64 . | 2 | 2012–2017 |
Tireman-Joy-Chicago Improvement Ass'n v. Chernick
green
2 sentences2024Administrative rulings may be reversed upon a “showing of arbitrary action or a clear abuse of discretion.” Tireman-Joy-Chicago Improvement Ass’n v Chernick, 361 Mich 211, 219 ; 105 NW2d 57 (1960). 2024Administrative rulings may be reversed upon a “showing of arbitrary action or a clear abuse of discretion.” Tireman-Joy-Chicago Improvement Ass’n v Chernick, 361 Mich 211, 219 ; 105 NW2d 57 (1960). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Natural Resources Defense Council v. Department of Environmental Quality
green
2 sentences2021Courts review de novo questions of law, including whether an agency’s action complied with a statute. [Natural Resources Defense Council v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 300 Mich App 79, 87-88 ; 832 NW2d 288 (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Further, “[a] ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Henderson v Civil Serv Comm, 321 Mich App 25, 44 ; 913 NW2d 665 (2017) (quotation mar 2021Courts review de novo questions of law, including whether an agency’s action complied with a statute. [Natural Resources Defense Council v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 300 Mich App 79, 87-88 ; 832 NW2d 288 (2013) (quotation marks and citations omitted).] Further, “[a] ruling is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks an adequate determining principle, when it reflects an absence of consideration or adjustment with reference to principles, circumstances, or significance, or when it is freakish or whimsical.” Henderson v Civil Serv Comm, 321 Mich App 25, 44 ; 913 NW2d 665 (2017) (quotation mar | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Department of Community Health v. Risch
green
1 sentence2019Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as “sufficient to support a conclusion.” Dep’t of Community Health v Risch, 274 Mich App at 372 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Loutts v. Loutts
green
1 sentence2017“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Kalaj v Kahn, 295 Mich App 420, 425 ; 820 NW2d 223 (2012). “[F]ailure to exercise discretion when called on to do so constitutes an abdication and hence an abuse of discretion.” Loutts v Loutts, 298 Mich App 21, 24 ; 826 NW2d 152 (2012). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Kalaj v. Khan
green
2 sentences2017“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Kalaj v Kahn, 295 Mich App 420, 425 ; 820 NW2d 223 (2012). “[F]ailure to exercise discretion when called on to do so constitutes an abdication and hence an abuse of discretion.” Loutts v Loutts, 298 Mich App 21, 24 ; 826 NW2d 152 (2012). 2017“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Kalaj v Kahn, 295 Mich App 420, 425 ; 820 NW2d 223 (2012). “[F]ailure to exercise discretion when called on to do so constitutes an abdication and hence an abuse of discretion.” Loutts v Loutts, 298 Mich App 21, 24 ; 826 NW2d 152 (2012). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.