15 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2017–2026 11 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 |
|---|---|---|
Duray Development, LLC v. Perringreen2 sentences2026See also Duray Development, LLC v Perrin, 288 Mich App 143, 165 ; 792 NW2d 749 (2010) (holding that a trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider the Dean factors before disallowing a party to call any witnesses as a sanction). 2026See also Duray Development, LLC v Perrin, 288 Mich App 143, 165 ; 792 NW2d 749 (2010) (holding that a trial court abused its discretion when it failed to consider the Dean factors before disallowing a party to call any witnesses as a sanction). | 8 | 8 |
Dean v. Tuckergreen2 sentences2026In doing so, it considered the factors set forth in Dean v Tucker, 182 Mich App 27 ; 451 NW2d 571 (1990) (the so-called Dean factors).2 Based upon its analysis, it found that, although severe, dismissal was the appropriate sanction and that lesser sanctions would be insufficient. 2026See id. (third and fourth Dean factors). | 6 | 11 |
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). | 2 | 6 |
Barnard Manufacturing Co. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc.green2 sentences2017See Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich App 362, 373 ; 775 NW2d 618 (2009) (recognizing that while evidence offered in response to a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) must be “substantively admissible, it does not have to be in admissible form[ ]” provided it is admissible in content). -4- determining whether plaintiff may name these witnesses as experts in conformance with MCR 2.401(I)(1)(b).7 Finally, plaintiff argues that this Court should order that Bradshaw’s witnesses, Charles Funk, Ph.D. and Steven Rundell, Ph.D., are not qualifie 2017See Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich App 362, 373 ; 775 NW2d 618 (2009) (recognizing that while evidence offered in response to a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) must be “substantively admissible, it does not have to be in admissible form[ ]” provided it is admissible in content). -4- determining whether plaintiff may name these witnesses as experts in conformance with MCR 2.401(I)(1)(b).7 Finally, plaintiff argues that this Court should order that Bradshaw’s witnesses, Charles Funk, Ph.D. and Steven Rundell, Ph.D., are not qualifie | 2 | 2 |
Houston v. Southwest Detroit Hospitalgreen2 sentences2024See Houston v Southwest Detroit Hospital, 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). 2024See Houston v Southwest Detroit Hospital, 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). | 1 | 1 |
Pew v. Michigan State Universitygreen2 sentences2023See Pew v Mich State Univ, 307 Mich App 328, 334 ; 859 NW2d 246 (2014) (defining “dictum” as “a judicial comment that is not necessary to the decision in the case.”) (citation -10- We affirm. /s/ Kathleen A. Feeney /s/ Michelle M. 2023See Pew v Mich State Univ, 307 Mich App 328, 334 ; 859 NW2d 246 (2014) (defining “dictum” as “a judicial comment that is not necessary to the decision in the case.”) (citation -10- We affirm. /s/ Kathleen A. Feeney /s/ Michelle M. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Thorne v. Bell
green
2 sentences2017In Thorne v Bell, 206 Mich App 625, 633-634 ; 522 NW2d 711 (1994), this Court held that the plaintiffs’ violation of the trial court’s scheduling order by failing to timely file witness and exhibit lists did not justify the “harsh sanction[ ]” of dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaints, where the record did not indicate “a history of recalcitrance or deliberate noncompliance with discovery orders[.]” Our review of the record confirms that the trial court did not expressly consider the Dean factors on the record during the April 27, 2016 motion hearing, and it did not otherwise indicate that it 2017In Thorne v Bell, 206 Mich App 625, 633-634 ; 522 NW2d 711 (1994), this Court held that the plaintiffs’ violation of the trial court’s scheduling order by failing to timely file witness and exhibit lists did not justify the “harsh sanction[ ]” of dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaints, where the record did not indicate “a history of recalcitrance or deliberate noncompliance with discovery orders[.]” Our review of the record confirms that the trial court did not expressly consider the Dean factors on the record during the April 27, 2016 motion hearing, and it did not otherwise indicate that it | 2 | 2017–2017 |
O’connell v. Director of Elections
green
2 sentences2026In addition, because issues involving subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at 2 Dean v Hunter, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 11, 2025 (Docket No. 376734). 3 Dean v Hunter, ___ Mich ___; 24 NW3d 799 (2025). -5- any time, O’Connell v Dir of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 100 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016), we have jurisdiction to address Dean’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this case. 2026In addition, because issues involving subject-matter jurisdiction may be raised at 2 Dean v Hunter, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered August 11, 2025 (Docket No. 376734). 3 Dean v Hunter, ___ Mich ___; 24 NW3d 799 (2025). -5- any time, O’Connell v Dir of Elections, 316 Mich App 91, 100 ; 891 NW2d 240 (2016), we have jurisdiction to address Dean’s argument that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over this case. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Estate of Peterson v. Brannigan Bros Restaurants and Taverns LLC
green
2 sentences2024We “prefer to resolve issues on their merits when possible[.]” Mueller v Brannigan Bros Restaurants & Taverns LLC, 323 Mich App 566, 585-586 ; 918 NW2d 545 (2018). 2024We “prefer to resolve issues on their merits when possible[.]” Mueller v Brannigan Bros Restaurants & Taverns LLC, 323 Mich App 566, 585-586 ; 918 NW2d 545 (2018). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Grubor Enterprises, Inc v. Kortidis
green
2 sentences2024“Witness lists are an element of discovery,” and “[t]he ultimate objective of pretrial discovery is to make available to all parties, in advance of trial, all relevant facts which might be admitted into evidence at trial.” Grubor Enterprises, Inc v Kortidis, 201 Mich App 625, 628 ; 506 NW2d 614 (1993). 2024“Witness lists are an element of discovery,” and “[t]he ultimate objective of pretrial discovery is to make available to all parties, in advance of trial, all relevant facts which might be admitted into evidence at trial.” Grubor Enterprises, Inc v Kortidis, 201 Mich App 625, 628 ; 506 NW2d 614 (1993). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Griswold Properties, LLC v. Lexington Insurance
green
2 sentences2023Because the trial court analyzed the relevant Dean factors in its opinion, and none of its findings constituted an abuse of discretion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Phillips’s claims as a discovery sanction.4 4 Though “[s]tare decisis does not arise from a point addressed in obiter dictum,” “an issue that is intentionally addressed and decided is not dictum if the issue is germane to the controversy in the case, even if the issue was not necessarily decisive of the controversy in the case.” Griswold Props, LLC v Lexington Ins Co, 276 Mich App 551, 563 ; 741 NW2d 5 2023Because the trial court analyzed the relevant Dean factors in its opinion, and none of its findings constituted an abuse of discretion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Phillips’s claims as a discovery sanction.4 4 Though “[s]tare decisis does not arise from a point addressed in obiter dictum,” “an issue that is intentionally addressed and decided is not dictum if the issue is germane to the controversy in the case, even if the issue was not necessarily decisive of the controversy in the case.” Griswold Props, LLC v Lexington Ins Co, 276 Mich App 551, 563 ; 741 NW2d 5 | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kalamazoo Oil Co. v. Boerman
green
1 sentence2022Trial courts should also consider the following nonexhaustive factors (Dean factors) before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (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 v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (19 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance v. ACO, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Trial courts should also consider the following nonexhaustive factors (Dean factors) before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (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 v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (19 2022Trial courts should also consider the following nonexhaustive factors (Dean factors) before imposing the severe sanction of dismissal: (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 v Ramirez, 211 Mich App 501, 507 ; 536 NW2d 280 (19 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc
green
2 sentences2021Duray Dev, LLC, 288 Mich App at 165 ; Linsell, 266 Mich App at 21 . 2021Duray Dev, LLC, 288 Mich App at 165 ; Linsell, 266 Mich App at 21 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.