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.
15 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2023 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Certified Questiongreen2 sentences2007This Court’s decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court’s constitutional authority to answer certified questions. 1 Further, the majority’s decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. 2 See In re Certified Question (Miller v Ford Motor Co), 479 Mich 498, 548 (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, 462 Mich 1208 (2000) (Weaver, J., dissenting); In re C 2007Syndicate, Inc.), 472 Mich. 1225 , 696 N.W.2d 687 (2005) (Weaver, J., concurring); In re Certified Question ( Bankey v. Storer Broadcasting Co.), 432 Mich. 438, 467-471 , 443 N.W.2d 112 (1989) (opinion by Levin, J.). [2] See In re Certified Question (Miller v. Ford Motor Co.), supra at 553, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Berg, Cherry picking: In deciding a certified question from Texas, the MSC took the law it liked, and left the rest, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, August 20, 2007, p. 1; 21 Mich. L.W. 1129; (accessed September 17, 2007). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Certified Question From 14th Dist. Court of Appeals of Texasgreen2 sentences2007This Court’s decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court’s constitutional authority to answer certified questions. 1 Further, the majority’s decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. 2 See In re Certified Question (Miller v Ford Motor Co), 479 Mich 498, 548 (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, 462 Mich 1208 (2000) (Weaver, J., dissenting); In re C 2007This Court's decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court's constitutional authority to answer certified questions. [1] Further, the majority's decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. [2] NOTES [1] See In re Certified Question (Miller v. Ford Motor Co.), 479 Mich. 498, 548 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, Department of Transp | 1 | 1 |
Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp. v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2007This Court’s decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court’s constitutional authority to answer certified questions. 1 Further, the majority’s decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. 2 See In re Certified Question (Miller v Ford Motor Co), 479 Mich 498, 548 (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, 462 Mich 1208 (2000) (Weaver, J., dissenting); In re C 2007This Court's decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court's constitutional authority to answer certified questions. [1] Further, the majority's decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. [2] NOTES [1] See In re Certified Question (Miller v. Ford Motor Co.), 479 Mich. 498, 548 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, Department of Transp | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1997See e.g., Turner v United States, 474 A2d 1293, 1294 (DC, 1984) (“This court understandably note[s] that a hung jury determines nothing, and that from the verdict one could not conclude what the jury necessarily must have determined. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Henry v. Dow Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences2022“This [C]ourt uses the principles of statutory construction when interpreting a Michigan court rule.” Henry v Dow Chem Co, 484 Mich 483, 495 ; 772 NW2d 301 (2009). 2022“This [C]ourt uses the principles of statutory construction when interpreting a Michigan court rule.” Henry v Dow Chem Co, 484 Mich 483, 495 ; 772 NW2d 301 (2009). | 9 | 2014–2023 |
Patrick v. US TANGIBLE INV.
green
1 sentence2017Under the unambiguous language of MCR 2.116(C)(6), summary disposition is appropriate whenever “there is another action between the same parties involving the same claims currently initiated and pending at the time of the decision regarding the motion for summary disposition.” Fast Air, 235 Mich App at 549 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Acorn Investment Co v. Michigan Basic Property Insurance Assn
green
1 sentence2017On the contrary, “[t]his court uses the principles of statutory construction when interpreting a Michigan court rule,” beginning “by considering the plain language of the court rule in order to ascertain its meaning.” Henry v Dow Chem Co, 484 Mich 483, 495 ; 772 NW2d 301 (2009). “[W]hen the language of the rule is unambiguous, it must be enforced as written.” Acorn Investment Co v Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass’n, 495 Mich 338, 350 ; 852 NW2d 22 (2014). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Certified Question From US District Court
green
2 sentences2007This Court’s decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court’s constitutional authority to answer certified questions. 1 Further, the majority’s decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. 2 See In re Certified Question (Miller v Ford Motor Co), 479 Mich 498, 548 (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, 462 Mich 1208 (2000) (Weaver, J., dissenting); In re C 2007This Court's decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court's constitutional authority to answer certified questions. [1] Further, the majority's decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. [2] NOTES [1] See In re Certified Question (Miller v. Ford Motor Co.), 479 Mich. 498, 548 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, Department of Transp | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Certified Questions US Court of Appeals
green
2 sentences2007This Court’s decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court’s constitutional authority to answer certified questions. 1 Further, the majority’s decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. 2 See In re Certified Question (Miller v Ford Motor Co), 479 Mich 498, 548 (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, 462 Mich 1208 (2000) (Weaver, J., dissenting); In re C 2007Syndicate, Inc.), 472 Mich. 1225 , 696 N.W.2d 687 (2005) (Weaver, J., concurring); In re Certified Question ( Bankey v. Storer Broadcasting Co.), 432 Mich. 438, 467-471 , 443 N.W.2d 112 (1989) (opinion by Levin, J.). [2] See In re Certified Question (Miller v. Ford Motor Co.), supra at 553, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Berg, Cherry picking: In deciding a certified question from Texas, the MSC took the law it liked, and left the rest, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, August 20, 2007, p. 1; 21 Mich. L.W. 1129; (accessed September 17, 2007). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
In Re Certified Question From US Ct. of App.
green
1 sentence2007This Court's decision to answer the certified question in this case should be vacated because MCR 7.305(B), the Michigan court rule allowing the Court to answer certified questions from other courts, goes beyond this court's constitutional authority to answer certified questions. [1] Further, the majority's decision to answer the certified question in this case is unprecedented and unnecessary. [2] NOTES [1] See In re Certified Question (Miller v. Ford Motor Co.), 479 Mich. 498, 548 , ___ N.W.2d ___ (2007) (Weaver, J., dissenting); see also Proposed Amendment of MCR 7.305, Department of Transp | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Nielsen v. Braland
green
1 sentence2000In Nielsen v Braland, 264 Minn 481, 484; 119 NW2d 737 (1963), the Minnesota Supreme Court, applying the Minnesota court rule providing that service of a summons and complaint shall be made “upon an individual by delivering a copy to him personally,” held: We have not had occasion to consider the question whether service is made when the defendant refuses to accept it, but it is generally held that if the process server and the defendant are within speaking distance of each other and such action is taken as to convince a reasonable person that personal service is being attempted, service cannot | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Mason v. Letts
green
2 sentences2000The remaining cases defendants rely on do not assist in giving content to the words “delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally”: Felix v Felix, 47 Mich App 744 ; 209 NW2d 871 (1973) (prerequisites for substituted service), Mason v Letts, 14 Mich App 330 ; 165 NW2d 481 (1968) (complaint not served with summons), Ooley v Collins, 344 Mich 148 ; 73 NW2d 464 (1955) (the defendant’s residence unknown, notice by publication only), and Hempel v Bay Circuit Judge, 222 Mich 553 ; 193 NW 281 (1923) (holding a general appearance sufficient to bind the defendants regardl 2000The remaining cases defendants rely on do not assist in giving content to the words “delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally”: Felix v Felix, 47 Mich App 744 ; 209 NW2d 871 (1973) (prerequisites for substituted service), Mason v Letts, 14 Mich App 330 ; 165 NW2d 481 (1968) (complaint not served with summons), Ooley v Collins, 344 Mich 148 ; 73 NW2d 464 (1955) (the defendant’s residence unknown, notice by publication only), and Hempel v Bay Circuit Judge, 222 Mich 553 ; 193 NW 281 (1923) (holding a general appearance sufficient to bind the defendants regardl | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Felix v. Felix
green
2 sentences2000The remaining cases defendants rely on do not assist in giving content to the words “delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally”: Felix v Felix, 47 Mich App 744 ; 209 NW2d 871 (1973) (prerequisites for substituted service), Mason v Letts, 14 Mich App 330 ; 165 NW2d 481 (1968) (complaint not served with summons), Ooley v Collins, 344 Mich 148 ; 73 NW2d 464 (1955) (the defendant’s residence unknown, notice by publication only), and Hempel v Bay Circuit Judge, 222 Mich 553 ; 193 NW 281 (1923) (holding a general appearance sufficient to bind the defendants regardl 2000The remaining cases defendants rely on do not assist in giving content to the words “delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally”: Felix v Felix, 47 Mich App 744 ; 209 NW2d 871 (1973) (prerequisites for substituted service), Mason v Letts, 14 Mich App 330 ; 165 NW2d 481 (1968) (complaint not served with summons), Ooley v Collins, 344 Mich 148 ; 73 NW2d 464 (1955) (the defendant’s residence unknown, notice by publication only), and Hempel v Bay Circuit Judge, 222 Mich 553 ; 193 NW 281 (1923) (holding a general appearance sufficient to bind the defendants regardl | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ooley v. Collins
green
2 sentences2000The remaining cases defendants rely on do not assist in giving content to the words “delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally”: Felix v Felix, 47 Mich App 744 ; 209 NW2d 871 (1973) (prerequisites for substituted service), Mason v Letts, 14 Mich App 330 ; 165 NW2d 481 (1968) (complaint not served with summons), Ooley v Collins, 344 Mich 148 ; 73 NW2d 464 (1955) (the defendant’s residence unknown, notice by publication only), and Hempel v Bay Circuit Judge, 222 Mich 553 ; 193 NW 281 (1923) (holding a general appearance sufficient to bind the defendants regardl 2000The remaining cases defendants rely on do not assist in giving content to the words “delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally”: Felix v Felix, 47 Mich App 744 ; 209 NW2d 871 (1973) (prerequisites for substituted service), Mason v Letts, 14 Mich App 330 ; 165 NW2d 481 (1968) (complaint not served with summons), Ooley v Collins, 344 Mich 148 ; 73 NW2d 464 (1955) (the defendant’s residence unknown, notice by publication only), and Hempel v Bay Circuit Judge, 222 Mich 553 ; 193 NW 281 (1923) (holding a general appearance sufficient to bind the defendants regardl | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hempel v. Bay Circuit Judge
neutral
2 sentences2000The remaining cases defendants rely on do not assist in giving content to the words “delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally”: Felix v Felix, 47 Mich App 744 ; 209 NW2d 871 (1973) (prerequisites for substituted service), Mason v Letts, 14 Mich App 330 ; 165 NW2d 481 (1968) (complaint not served with summons), Ooley v Collins, 344 Mich 148 ; 73 NW2d 464 (1955) (the defendant’s residence unknown, notice by publication only), and Hempel v Bay Circuit Judge, 222 Mich 553 ; 193 NW 281 (1923) (holding a general appearance sufficient to bind the defendants regardl 2000The remaining cases defendants rely on do not assist in giving content to the words “delivering a summons and a copy of the complaint to the defendant personally”: Felix v Felix, 47 Mich App 744 ; 209 NW2d 871 (1973) (prerequisites for substituted service), Mason v Letts, 14 Mich App 330 ; 165 NW2d 481 (1968) (complaint not served with summons), Ooley v Collins, 344 Mich 148 ; 73 NW2d 464 (1955) (the defendant’s residence unknown, notice by publication only), and Hempel v Bay Circuit Judge, 222 Mich 553 ; 193 NW 281 (1923) (holding a general appearance sufficient to bind the defendants regardl | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.
green
1 sentence1993The Supreme Court of Arizona considered the same question in State v Superior Court, 125 Ariz 575, 578; 611 P2d 928 (1980), where the Arizona court rule, like the Michigan court rule, does not specifically provide that the prosecutor, as well as the defendant, may withdraw from a plea agreement if the court rejects the terms of the agreement. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell
green
2 sentences1993In this regard, we find instructive the interpretation of FR Civ P 60(b), which substantively is the same as MCR 2.612, and from which the Michigan court rule is derived. [6] In Cresswell v Sullivan & Cromwell, supra , the plaintiffs *202 contended that during the pendency of prior litigation that culminated in settlement, the defendants intentionally withheld documents that were requested during discovery. 1993In this regard, we find instructive the interpretation of FR Civ P 60(b), which substantively is the same as MCR 2.612, and from which the Michigan court rule is derived. 6 In Cresswell v Sullivan & Cromwell, supra, the plain tiffs contended that during the pendency of prior litigation that culminated in settlement, the defendants intentionally withheld documents that were requested during discovery. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Rhodes v. Rhodes
green
2 sentences1985However, what constitutes an appearance is not defined in a Michigan court rule or statute: "This Court has held that 'appear’ as it is used in default proceedings should be taken 'in its generic sense’ as any act of a party acknowledging jurisdiction of a court or invoking court action on his behalf, Rhodes v Rhodes, 3 Mich App 396, 401 ; 142 NW2d 508 (1966), quoting from 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 658. 1985However, what constitutes an appearance is not defined in a Michigan court rule or statute: "This Court has held that 'appear’ as it is used in default proceedings should be taken 'in its generic sense’ as any act of a party acknowledging jurisdiction of a court or invoking court action on his behalf, Rhodes v Rhodes, 3 Mich App 396, 401 ; 142 NW2d 508 (1966), quoting from 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 658. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.