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.
14 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1978–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
McDonald v. Farm Bureau Insurancegreen2 sentences2023See McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 204-205 ; 747 NW2d 811 (2008) (holding that in order to invoke the equitable estoppel doctrine, the plaintiff must generally establish that “(1) defendant’s acts or representations induced plaintiff to believe that the limitations period clause would not be enforced, (2) plaintiff justifiably relied on this belief, and (3) she was prejudiced as a result of her reliance on her belief that the clause would not be enforced”). 2023See McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191, 204-205 ; 747 NW2d 811 (2008) (holding that in order to invoke the equitable estoppel doctrine, the plaintiff must generally establish that “(1) defendant’s acts or representations induced plaintiff to believe that the limitations period clause would not be enforced, (2) plaintiff justifiably relied on this belief, and (3) she was prejudiced as a result of her reliance on her belief that the clause would not be enforced”). | 2 | 5 |
Smitham v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.green2 sentences2024See Smitham v State Farm Fire & Cas Co, 297 Mich App 537, 538 ; 824 NW2d 601 (2012) (concluding that a party’s failure to invoke the appraisal process did not affect the determination of “the timeliness of an action for alleged underpayment of a claim.”). 2024See Smitham v State Farm Fire & Cas Co, 297 Mich App 537, 538 ; 824 NW2d 601 (2012) (concluding that a party’s failure to invoke the appraisal process did not affect the determination of “the timeliness of an action for alleged underpayment of a claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
Klass v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences2015See Klass v Detroit, 129 Mich 35, 39-40 ; 88 NW 204 (1901). 2015See Klass v Detroit, 129 Mich 35, 39-40 ; 88 NW 204 (1901). | 1 | 1 |
City of Grosse Pointe Park v. Michigan Municipal Liability & Property Poolgreen2 sentences2008See Grosse Pointe Park v Michigan Muni Liability & Prop Pool, 473 Mich 188, 204, 224 ; 702 NW2d 106 (2005) (opinions by Cavanagh, J., and Young, J.); Dahrooge, supra at 452 . 2008See Grosse Pointe Park v Michigan Muni Liability & Prop Pool, 473 Mich 188, 204, 224 ; 702 NW2d 106 (2005) (opinions by Cavanagh, J., and Young, J.); Dahrooge, supra at 452 . | 1 | 1 |
Berry v. Zismangreen2 sentences1978See Biberstine v Woodworth, 81 Mich App 705 ; 265 NW2d 797 (1978), Berry v Zisman, 70 Mich App 376, 378 ; 245 NW2d 758, 759 (1976), Corley v Logan, 35 Mich App 199, 202 ; 192 NW2d 319, 321 (1971). 1978See Biberstine v Woodworth, 81 Mich App 705 ; 265 NW2d 797 (1978), Berry v Zisman, 70 Mich App 376, 378 ; 245 NW2d 758, 759 (1976), Corley v Logan, 35 Mich App 199, 202 ; 192 NW2d 319, 321 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
Corley v. Logangreen2 sentences1978See Biberstine v Woodworth, 81 Mich App 705 ; 265 NW2d 797 (1978), Berry v Zisman, 70 Mich App 376, 378 ; 245 NW2d 758, 759 (1976), Corley v Logan, 35 Mich App 199, 202 ; 192 NW2d 319, 321 (1971). 1978See Biberstine v Woodworth, 81 Mich App 705 ; 265 NW2d 797 (1978), Berry v Zisman, 70 Mich App 376, 378 ; 245 NW2d 758, 759 (1976), Corley v Logan, 35 Mich App 199, 202 ; 192 NW2d 319, 321 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
Biberstine v. Woodworthgreen2 sentences1978See Biberstine v Woodworth, 81 Mich App 705 ; 265 NW2d 797 (1978), Berry v Zisman, 70 Mich App 376, 378 ; 245 NW2d 758, 759 (1976), Corley v Logan, 35 Mich App 199, 202 ; 192 NW2d 319, 321 (1971). 1978See Biberstine v Woodworth, 81 Mich App 705 ; 265 NW2d 797 (1978), Berry v Zisman, 70 Mich App 376, 378 ; 245 NW2d 758, 759 (1976), Corley v Logan, 35 Mich App 199, 202 ; 192 NW2d 319, 321 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tillman v. Great Lakes Truck Center, Inc
green
2 sentences2023MCL 500.5805(2); Tillman v Great Lakes Truck Ctr, Inc, 277 Mich App 47, 50 ; 742 NW2d 622 (2007). 2023MCL 500.5805(2); Tillman v Great Lakes Truck Ctr, Inc, 277 Mich App 47, 50 ; 742 NW2d 622 (2007). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Dart v. Dart
green
2 sentences2021The trial court entertained the parties’ arguments as to that defense, but insofar as we can determine from the hearing transcript, did not clearly rule on that defense, presumably because its res judicata ruling rendered the limitations period defense moot. -3- the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586 ; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). 2021The doctrine is broadly applied, and it therefore bars “not only claims already litigated, but every claim arising from the same transaction that the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, could have raised but did not.” Id. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dart v. Dart
green
1 sentence2021The trial court entertained the parties’ arguments as to that defense, but insofar as we can determine from the hearing transcript, did not clearly rule on that defense, presumably because its res judicata ruling rendered the limitations period defense moot. -3- the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586 ; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Dextrom v. Wexford County
green
2 sentences2018However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [ Dextrom v. Wexford Co. , 287 Mich.App. 406 , 428-429, 789 N.W.2d 211 (2010).] "[O]nly factual allegations, not legal conclusions, are to be taken as true under MCR 2.116(C)(7) ...." Davis v. City of Detroit , 269 Mich.App. 376 , 379 n. 1, 711 N.W.2d 462 (2006). *6 A. WAIVER OF THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS DEFENSE Plaintiff argues that defendants cannot prevail on any statute-of-limitations defense because defendants failed to assert a limitations-period d 2018However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [ Dextrom v. Wexford Co. , 287 Mich.App. 406 , 428-429, 789 N.W.2d 211 (2010).] "[O]nly factual allegations, not legal conclusions, are to be taken as true under MCR 2.116(C)(7) ...." Davis v. City of Detroit , 269 Mich.App. 376 , 379 n. 1, 711 N.W.2d 462 (2006). *6 A. WAIVER OF THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS DEFENSE Plaintiff argues that defendants cannot prevail on any statute-of-limitations defense because defendants failed to assert a limitations-period d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Davis v. City of Detroit
green
1 sentence2018However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [ Dextrom v. Wexford Co. , 287 Mich.App. 406 , 428-429, 789 N.W.2d 211 (2010).] "[O]nly factual allegations, not legal conclusions, are to be taken as true under MCR 2.116(C)(7) ...." Davis v. City of Detroit , 269 Mich.App. 376 , 379 n. 1, 711 N.W.2d 462 (2006). *6 A. WAIVER OF THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS DEFENSE Plaintiff argues that defendants cannot prevail on any statute-of-limitations defense because defendants failed to assert a limitations-period d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Davis v. City of Detroit
green
1 sentence2018However, if a question of fact exists to the extent that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, dismissal is inappropriate. [ Dextrom v. Wexford Co. , 287 Mich.App. 406 , 428-429, 789 N.W.2d 211 (2010).] "[O]nly factual allegations, not legal conclusions, are to be taken as true under MCR 2.116(C)(7) ...." Davis v. City of Detroit , 269 Mich.App. 376 , 379 n. 1, 711 N.W.2d 462 (2006). *6 A. WAIVER OF THE STATUTE-OF-LIMITATIONS DEFENSE Plaintiff argues that defendants cannot prevail on any statute-of-limitations defense because defendants failed to assert a limitations-period d | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Wengel v. Wengel
green
2 sentences2009Wengel v Wengel, 270 Mich App 86, 92 ; 714 NW2d 371 (2006). 2009Wengel v Wengel, 270 Mich App 86, 92 ; 714 NW2d 371 (2006). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dahrooge v. Rochester German Insurance
green
1 sentence2008See Grosse Pointe Park v Michigan Muni Liability & Prop Pool, 473 Mich 188, 204, 224 ; 702 NW2d 106 (2005) (opinions by Cavanagh, J., and Young, J.); Dahrooge, supra at 452 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Apsey v. Memorial Hospital
green
1 sentence2007Accordingly, under the authority of Apsey, supra at 677-678, 682-683 , 702 N.W.2d 870 , their lawsuit was barred, and the trial court properly granted summary disposition to defendants. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Insurance Co. of North America v. Southeastern Electric Co.
green
2 sentences1980Insurance Co of North America v Southeastern Electric Co, Inc, 405 Mich 554, 557 ; 275 NW2d 255 (1979). 1980Insurance Co of North America v Southeastern Electric Co, Inc, 405 Mich 554, 557 ; 275 NW2d 255 (1979). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.