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 1 courts 1975–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Catherine Milot v. Department of Transportationgreen2 sentences2026“If the plaintiff does not include the name of a known witness in the notice, the plaintiff’s notice is defective, and the trial court should grant summary disposition in favor of the governmental agency.” Id. (citation omitted). 2026The purpose of the notice required under the statute is “to provide the governmental agency with the opportunity to investigate the claim while the evidentiary trial is still fresh and, additionally, to remedy the defect before other persons are injured.” Milot, 318 Mich App at 277 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Jojo-Ab, Incgreen1 sentence1996See Brown, supra at 213 (Murphy, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Plunkett v. Department of Transportation
green
2 sentences2026The notice requirement serves two basic purposes: “(1) to provide the governmental agency with an opportunity to investigate the claim while it is still fresh and (2) to remedy the defect before other persons are injured.” Id. at 176-177 . 2020All agree that the purpose of this 120-day notice requirement is two-fold, namely, it “provide[s] the governmental agency with an opportunity to investigate the claim while it is still fresh,” and it allows the governmental agency the opportunity “to remedy the defect before other persons are injured.” Plunkett v Dep’t of Transp, 286 Mich App 168, 176 ; 779 NW2d 263 (2009). | 5 | 2013–2026 |
Hussey v. City of Muskegon Heights
green
2 sentences2023The purpose of the notice requirement is “to provide the governmental agency with an opportunity to investigate the claim while the evidentiary [trail] is still fresh and, additionally, to remedy the defect before other persons are injured.” Burise v City of Pontiac, 282 Mich App 646, 652 ; 766 NW2d 311 (2009), (alteration in original); quoting Hussey v City of Muskegon Hts, 36 Mich App 264, 267-268 ; 193 NW2d 421 (1971). 2023The purpose of the notice requirement is “to provide the governmental agency with an opportunity to investigate the claim while the evidentiary [trail] is still fresh and, additionally, to remedy the defect before other persons are injured.” Burise v City of Pontiac, 282 Mich App 646, 652 ; 766 NW2d 311 (2009), (alteration in original); quoting Hussey v City of Muskegon Hts, 36 Mich App 264, 267-268 ; 193 NW2d 421 (1971). | 5 | 1975–2023 |
Burise v. City of Pontiac
green
2 sentences2023The purpose of the notice requirement is “to provide the governmental agency with an opportunity to investigate the claim while the evidentiary [trail] is still fresh and, additionally, to remedy the defect before other persons are injured.” Burise v City of Pontiac, 282 Mich App 646, 652 ; 766 NW2d 311 (2009), (alteration in original); quoting Hussey v City of Muskegon Hts, 36 Mich App 264, 267-268 ; 193 NW2d 421 (1971). 2023The purpose of the notice requirement is “to provide the governmental agency with an opportunity to investigate the claim while the evidentiary [trail] is still fresh and, additionally, to remedy the defect before other persons are injured.” Burise v City of Pontiac, 282 Mich App 646, 652 ; 766 NW2d 311 (2009), (alteration in original); quoting Hussey v City of Muskegon Hts, 36 Mich App 264, 267-268 ; 193 NW2d 421 (1971). | 5 | 2016–2023 |
McLean v. City of Dearborn
green
2 sentences2019“Although under some circumstances this Court will conclude that a notice is sufficient despite a technical defect, the plaintiff must at least ‘adequately’ provide the required information.” McLean v City of Dearborn, 302 Mich App 68, 75 ; 836 NW2d 916 (2013) (citation omitted). 2015“The purpose of requiring notice is to provide the governmental agency with an opportunity to investigate the claim while it is fresh and to remedy the defect before another person is injured.” Id. at 76 . | 2 | 2015–2019 |
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.
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.