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.
17 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1947–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Barringer v. Arnoldgreen2 sentences2014“To come within the purview of this rule the circumstances attending the accident must present a situation that is ‘unusual or unsuspected.’ ” Vander Laan v Miedema, 385 Mich 226, 232 ; 188 NW2d 564 (1971), citing Barringer v Arnold, 358 Mich 594, 599 ; 101 NW2d 365 (1960). 2014“To come within the purview of this rule the circumstances attending the accident must present a situation that is ‘unusual or unsuspected.’ ” Vander Laan v Miedema, 385 Mich 226, 232 ; 188 NW2d 564 (1971), citing Barringer v Arnold, 358 Mich 594, 599 ; 101 NW2d 365 (1960). | 3 | 8 |
Gerzeski v. Department of State Highwaysgreen2 sentences1988See n 5. [16] Justice MOODY'S opinion in Gerzeski, supra, p 159 , interpreted Royston as excluding only negligence claims from the purview of the exception, thereby leaving the door open to the inclusion of "intentional nuisances. 1988Justice Moody’s opinion in Gerzeski, supra, p 159 , interpreted Royston as excluding only negligence claims from the purview of the exception, thereby leaving the door open to the inclusion of "intentional nuisances. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Meadowsgreen2 sentences1970See People v. Meadows (1970), 26 Mich App 675 , and People v. Tisi (1970), 384 Mich 214 . 1970See People v. Meadows (1970), 26 Mich App 675 , and People v. Tisi (1970), 384 Mich 214 . | 1 | 1 |
Harris v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1970In my view, this is a case for application of the rule set forth in Harris v. United States (1968), 390 US 234, 236 ( 88 S Ct 992, 993 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067, 1069 ), relative to the “plain view” doctrine: “It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to he in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may he introduced in evidence.” The facts in this case fall within the purview of this doctrine. 1970In my view, this is a case for application of the rule set forth in Harris v. United States (1968), 390 US 234, 236 ( 88 S Ct 992, 993 ; 19 L Ed 2d 1067, 1069 ), relative to the “plain view” doctrine: “It has long been settled that objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to he in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may he introduced in evidence.” The facts in this case fall within the purview of this doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Tisigreen2 sentences1970See People v. Meadows (1970), 26 Mich App 675 , and People v. Tisi (1970), 384 Mich 214 . 1970See People v. Meadows (1970), 26 Mich App 675 , and People v. Tisi (1970), 384 Mich 214 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vander Laan v. Miedema
green
2 sentences2022“To come within the purview of this rule the circumstances attending the accident must present a situation that is unusual or unsuspected.” Vander Laan v Miedema, 385 Mich 226, 232 ; 188 NW2d 564 (1971) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2022“To come within the purview of this rule the circumstances attending the accident must present a situation that is unusual or unsuspected.” Vander Laan v Miedema, 385 Mich 226, 232 ; 188 NW2d 564 (1971) (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 6 | 1982–2022 |
People v. Carines
green
1 sentence2025We anticipated it, and we’re not opposing [the prosecutor] bringing them [in] so long as it’s simply the convictions and not the details[.] Defendant waived this issue by expressly approving of the court’s decision to admit the evidence under MRE 609. “[W]aiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.” Carines, 460 Mich at 762 n 7 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Socony Vacuum Oil Co. v. Marvin
green
2 sentences2007The sudden-emergency doctrine provides as follows: “ ‘One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.’ ” [Vsetula v Whitmyer, 187 Mich App 675, 681 ; 468 NW2d 53 (1991), quoting Socony Vacuum Oil Co v Marvin, 313 Mich 528, 546 ; 21 NW2d 841 (1946), quoting Huddy on A 2007The sudden-emergency doctrine provides as follows: “ ‘One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.’ ” [Vsetula v Whitmyer, 187 Mich App 675, 681 ; 468 NW2d 53 (1991), quoting Socony Vacuum Oil Co v Marvin, 313 Mich 528, 546 ; 21 NW2d 841 (1946), quoting Huddy on A | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Vsetula v. Whitmyer
green
2 sentences2007The sudden-emergency doctrine provides as follows: “ ‘One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.’ ” [Vsetula v Whitmyer, 187 Mich App 675, 681 ; 468 NW2d 53 (1991), quoting Socony Vacuum Oil Co v Marvin, 313 Mich 528, 546 ; 21 NW2d 841 (1946), quoting Huddy on A 2007The sudden-emergency doctrine provides as follows: “ ‘One who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger, and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not guilty of negligence if he fails to adopt what subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method, unless the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.’ ” [Vsetula v Whitmyer, 187 Mich App 675, 681 ; 468 NW2d 53 (1991), quoting Socony Vacuum Oil Co v Marvin, 313 Mich 528, 546 ; 21 NW2d 841 (1946), quoting Huddy on A | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Sillery v. Board of Medicine
green
1 sentence2002According to the Sillery Court, “[s]uch a task would require an exhaustive enumeration of countless instances of conduct which obviously came within the purview of this standard.” Sillery, supra at 687 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Altman v. Meridian Township
green
2 sentences1999Altman, supra at 635 . 1999Altman, supra at 635 , 487 N.W.2d 155 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Roddis Lumber & Veneer Co. v. American Alliance Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence1963In other words, the principle generally applied by the courts is that if proof is made of a loss apparently within a contract of insurance, the burden is upon the insurer to prove that the loss arose from a cause of loss which is excepted or for which it is not liable, or from a cause which limits its liability.” The holding of this Court in Roddis Lumber & Veneer Company v. American Alliance Insurance Company, 330 Mich 81, 88 , is in accord with the general rule quoted. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Whitney v. Wheeler
green
1 sentence1947The testimony was not competent on the theory that it tended to show the relations of the parties at the time of the transaction in question, Pease v. Jennings, 180 Mich. 682, 689 , nor was it within the scope of the rule suggested' in Whitney v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 490 (quoted in Pease v. Jennings) as to admissibility of “evidence tending to show a .continuous and apparently fixed state of mind and purpose, inconsistent with such alleged gift, existing previously thereto.” Neither was it within the purview of the rule, recognized by some courts, that testimony of this, character may be receive | 1 | 1947–1947 |
Pease v. Jennings
neutral
1 sentence1947The testimony was not competent on the theory that it tended to show the relations of the parties at the time of the transaction in question, Pease v. Jennings, 180 Mich. 682, 689 , nor was it within the scope of the rule suggested' in Whitney v. Wheeler, 116 Mass. 490 (quoted in Pease v. Jennings) as to admissibility of “evidence tending to show a .continuous and apparently fixed state of mind and purpose, inconsistent with such alleged gift, existing previously thereto.” Neither was it within the purview of the rule, recognized by some courts, that testimony of this, character may be receive | 1 | 1947–1947 |
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.