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.
19 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2015–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Vicencio v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2026On January 22, 2024, the trial court entered an order requiring Brown to provide Allstate supplemental initial disclosures, authorizations to obtain medical records, and a date for Brown’s 2 The Dean factors are sometimes referred to as the “Vicencio factors” based upon their rearticulation in Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995). 2026On January 22, 2024, the trial court entered an order requiring Brown to provide Allstate supplemental initial disclosures, authorizations to obtain medical records, and a date for Brown’s 2 The Dean factors are sometimes referred to as the “Vicencio factors” based upon their rearticulation in Vicencio v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (1995). | 5 | 12 |
Kalamazoo Oil Co. v. Boermangreen2 sentences2023The nonexhaustive list of Vicencio factors include: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio, 211 Mich App at 507 .] “[I]t is imperative that the trial court balance the factors and explain its reasons for imposing such a grave 2023The nonexhaustive list of Vicencio factors include: (1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Vicencio, 211 Mich App at 507 .] “[I]t is imperative that the trial court balance the factors and explain its reasons for imposing such a grave | 1 | 4 |
Maldonado v. Ford Motor Co.green2 sentences2019In re Waters Drain Drainage Dist, 296 Mich App 214, 220 ; 818 NW2d 478 (2012). 1 Additional defendants in this case were Premium Air Systems Inc., J & E Electric Inc., and Independence commercial Construction Inc., but these companies are not parties on appeal. 2 McLaren, as cross-plaintiff, also unsuccessfully sought reinstatement of the case in the trial court; however, it has not appealed. 3 The trial court presumably meant that plaintiff had both failed to appear and failed to serve the scheduling order on the other parties. 4 As noted, plaintiff’s motion to reinstate was filed three month 2019In re Waters Drain Drainage Dist, 296 Mich App 214, 220 ; 818 NW2d 478 (2012). 1 Additional defendants in this case were Premium Air Systems Inc., J & E Electric Inc., and Independence commercial Construction Inc., but these companies are not parties on appeal. 2 McLaren, as cross-plaintiff, also unsuccessfully sought reinstatement of the case in the trial court; however, it has not appealed. 3 The trial court presumably meant that plaintiff had both failed to appear and failed to serve the scheduling order on the other parties. 4 As noted, plaintiff’s motion to reinstate was filed three month | 1 | 2 |
Malick Gueye v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2024See Gueye, 343 Mich App at 493-494 (“[B]efore dismiss[al] . . . , a trial court should consider the applicable Vicencio factors, including the availability of alternative sanctions, and decide whether dismissal is just. . . . 2024See Gueye, 343 Mich App at 493-494 (“[B]efore dismiss[al] . . . , a trial court should consider the applicable Vicencio factors, including the availability of alternative sanctions, and decide whether dismissal is just. . . . | 1 | 1 |
Woods v. SLB Property Management, LLCgreen2 sentences2020There are seven factors that a trial court should consider before dismissal is used as a sanction: 1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Id. at 507; see also Woods v SLB Prop Mgt, LLC, 277 Mich App 622, 631 ; 750 NW2d 228 (2008).] In 2020There are seven factors that a trial court should consider before dismissal is used as a sanction: 1) whether the violation was wilful or accidental; (2) the party’s history of refusing to comply with previous court orders; (3) the prejudice to the opposing party; (4) whether there exists a history of deliberate delay; (5) the degree of compliance with other parts of the court’s orders; (6) attempts to cure the defect; and (7) whether a lesser sanction would better serve the interests of justice. [Id. at 507; see also Woods v SLB Prop Mgt, LLC, 277 Mich App 622, 631 ; 750 NW2d 228 (2008).] In | 1 | 1 |
Houston v. Southwest Detroit Hospitalgreen2 sentences2019See Houston v Southwest Detroit Hosp, 166 Mich App 623, 631 ; 420 NW2d 835 (1987) (declining to usurp the trial court’s function of evaluating in the first instance whether dismissal was the most appropriate sanction). 5 Furthermore, we note that consistent with the principle enunciated in Vicencio, the trial court under MCR 2.401(G)(2) must excuse the failure to attend the court-ordered conference if the trial court finds either that “dismissal would cause manifest injustice” or that the failure to attend “was not due to the culpable negligence of the party or the party’s attorney.” 6 Vicenci 2019See Houston v Southwest Detroit Hosp, 166 Mich App 623, 631 ; 420 NW2d 835 (1987) (declining to usurp the trial court’s function of evaluating in the first instance whether dismissal was the most appropriate sanction). 5 Furthermore, we note that consistent with the principle enunciated in Vicencio, the trial court under MCR 2.401(G)(2) must excuse the failure to attend the court-ordered conference if the trial court finds either that “dismissal would cause manifest injustice” or that the failure to attend “was not due to the culpable negligence of the party or the party’s attorney.” 6 Vicenci | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Grimm v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2017Specifically, the Grimm Court held that the Tribunal “should consider” the Vicencio factors before sanctioning a party with dismissal and that “the record should reflect that the Tax Tribunal ‘gave careful consideration to the factors involved and considered all [of] its options in determining what sanction was just and proper in the context of the case before it.’ ” Id., quoting Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16, 26 ; 604 NW2d 727 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 ; 752 NW2d 37 (2008). 2017Specifically, the Grimm Court held that the Tribunal “should consider” the Vicencio factors before sanctioning a party with dismissal and that “the record should reflect that the Tax Tribunal ‘gave careful consideration to the factors involved and considered all [of] its options in determining what sanction was just and proper in the context of the case before it.’ ” Id., quoting Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16, 26 ; 604 NW2d 727 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 ; 752 NW2d 37 (2008). | 4 | 2017–2017 |
Edry v. Adelman
green
2 sentences2018Edry, 486 Mich at 639 . 2018Edry, 486 Mich at 639 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Bass v. Combs
red
2 sentences2017Specifically, the Grimm Court held that the Tribunal “should consider” the Vicencio factors before sanctioning a party with dismissal and that “the record should reflect that the Tax Tribunal ‘gave careful consideration to the factors involved and considered all [of] its options in determining what sanction was just and proper in the context of the case before it.’ ” Id., quoting Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16, 26 ; 604 NW2d 727 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 ; 752 NW2d 37 (2008). 2017Specifically, the Grimm Court held that the Tribunal “should consider” the Vicencio factors before sanctioning a party with dismissal and that “the record should reflect that the Tax Tribunal ‘gave careful consideration to the factors involved and considered all [of] its options in determining what sanction was just and proper in the context of the case before it.’ ” Id., quoting Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16, 26 ; 604 NW2d 727 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 ; 752 NW2d 37 (2008). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Dimmitt & Owens Financial, Inc v. Deloitte & Touche (Isc), LLC
green
2 sentences2017Specifically, the Grimm Court held that the Tribunal “should consider” the Vicencio factors before sanctioning a party with dismissal and that “the record should reflect that the Tax Tribunal ‘gave careful consideration to the factors involved and considered all [of] its options in determining what sanction was just and proper in the context of the case before it.’ ” Id., quoting Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16, 26 ; 604 NW2d 727 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 ; 752 NW2d 37 (2008). 2017Specifically, the Grimm Court held that the Tribunal “should consider” the Vicencio factors before sanctioning a party with dismissal and that “the record should reflect that the Tax Tribunal ‘gave careful consideration to the factors involved and considered all [of] its options in determining what sanction was just and proper in the context of the case before it.’ ” Id., quoting Bass v Combs, 238 Mich App 16, 26 ; 604 NW2d 727 (1999), overruled in part on other grounds Dimmitt & Owens Fin, Inc v Deloitte & Touche (ISC), LLC, 481 Mich 618 ; 752 NW2d 37 (2008). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Thomasina Glasker-Davis v. Daman Steven Auvenshine
green
2 sentences2022We disagree because “so long as the issue itself is not novel, a party is generally free to make a more sophisticated or fully developed argument on appeal than was made in the trial court.” Glasker- Davis v Auvenshine, 333 Mich App 222 , 228; 964 NW2d 809 (2020). -4- the proper legal analysis, the trial court necessarily abused its discretion. 2022We disagree because “so long as the issue itself is not novel, a party is generally free to make a more sophisticated or fully developed argument on appeal than was made in the trial court.” Glasker- Davis v Auvenshine, 333 Mich App 222 , 228; 964 NW2d 809 (2020). -4- the proper legal analysis, the trial court necessarily abused its discretion. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Roberts v. Farmers Insurance Exchange
green
2 sentences2022On remand, the trial court should review the Vicencio factors, and in determining the appropriate remedy, “carefully evaluate all available options on the record, including, in this case, consideration of the options specifically provided for by the Legislature under MCL 500.3153.” Gueye v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358992); slip op at 12 (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). 8 “Whether dismissal ultimately proves to be the appropriate resolution is for the trial court to decide.” Id. 2022On remand, the trial court should review the Vicencio factors, and in determining the appropriate remedy, “carefully evaluate all available options on the record, including, in this case, consideration of the options specifically provided for by the Legislature under MCL 500.3153.” Gueye v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358992); slip op at 12 (quotation marks and citation omitted; emphasis added). 8 “Whether dismissal ultimately proves to be the appropriate resolution is for the trial court to decide.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Waters Drain Drainage District
green
2 sentences2019In re Waters Drain Drainage Dist, 296 Mich App 214, 220 ; 818 NW2d 478 (2012). 1 Additional defendants in this case were Premium Air Systems Inc., J & E Electric Inc., and Independence commercial Construction Inc., but these companies are not parties on appeal. 2 McLaren, as cross-plaintiff, also unsuccessfully sought reinstatement of the case in the trial court; however, it has not appealed. 3 The trial court presumably meant that plaintiff had both failed to appear and failed to serve the scheduling order on the other parties. 4 As noted, plaintiff’s motion to reinstate was filed three month 2019In re Waters Drain Drainage Dist, 296 Mich App 214, 220 ; 818 NW2d 478 (2012). 1 Additional defendants in this case were Premium Air Systems Inc., J & E Electric Inc., and Independence commercial Construction Inc., but these companies are not parties on appeal. 2 McLaren, as cross-plaintiff, also unsuccessfully sought reinstatement of the case in the trial court; however, it has not appealed. 3 The trial court presumably meant that plaintiff had both failed to appear and failed to serve the scheduling order on the other parties. 4 As noted, plaintiff’s motion to reinstate was filed three month | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Duray Development, LLC v. Perrin
green
2 sentences2019Duray, 288 Mich App at 165 ; Kalamazoo Oil Co, 242 Mich App at 86 . 2019Duray, 288 Mich App at 165 ; Kalamazoo Oil Co, 242 Mich App at 86 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.