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 1 courts 1994–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
State-William Partnership v. Galegreen2 sentences1997See State-William Partnership v Gale, 169 Mich App 170 ; 425 NW2d 756 (1988). 1997See State-William Partnership v Gale, 169 Mich App 170 ; 425 NW2d 756 (1988). | 2 | 2 |
Nieves v. Bell Industries, Incgreen2 sentences2023“A misrepresentation claim requires reasonable reliance on a false representation.” Nieves v Bell Indus, Inc, 204 Mich App 459, 464 ; 517 NW2d 235 (1994). 2023“A misrepresentation claim requires reasonable reliance on a false representation.” Nieves v Bell Indus, Inc, 204 Mich App 459, 464 ; 517 NW2d 235 (1994). | 1 | 5 |
Rory v. Continental Insurancegreen1 sentence2021Although plaintiff asserts that waiver remains a “viable” doctrine despite our Supreme Court’s decision in Rory, 473 Mich at 470 (related to the validity of contractual limitations period), plaintiff’s brief on appeal contains no analysis of the waiver issue, and states in a conclusory fashion that “[a]pplying the fairness of . . . waiver to a conflict regarding the binding effect of a 1 Given our conclusion that summary disposition was properly granted under MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis of the six-month limitations period in the employment agreement, we need not address defendants’ alternativ | 1 | 1 |
Hi-Way Motor Co. v. International Harvester Co.green2 sentences1997Compare Hi-Way Motor Co v Int’l Harvester Co, 398 Mich 330, 336 ; 247 NW2d 813 (1976). 1997Compare Hi-Way Motor Co v Int’l Harvester Co, 398 Mich 330, 336 ; 247 NW2d 813 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Forge v. Smith
green
2 sentences2017Our Supreme Court has concluded that “[a] promise regarding the future cannot form the basis of a misrepresentation claim.” Forge v Smith, 458 Mich 198, 212 ; 580 NW2d 876 (1998). 2017Our Supreme Court has concluded that “[a] promise regarding the future cannot form the basis of a misrepresentation claim.” Forge v Smith, 458 Mich 198, 212 ; 580 NW2d 876 (1998). | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Zaremba Equipment, Inc. v. Harco National Insurance
green
1 sentence2015Id. at 39-40 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Novak v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences2003However, no agent of plaintiff ever signed this proposed written agreement. 7 As discussed in note 3, the proposed written version of the oral dlo agreement provided that defendant would pay plaintiff 1.75 percent commissions in my 2000, as opposed to the 1.5 percent commissions provided for in the oral dlo agreement. 8 There is no dispute that defendant acted on its belief that plaintiff accepted the terms of the oral dlo agreement by paying plaintiff commis *622 sions according to the reduced rates and base price set forth in the oral dlo agreement. 9 We note that, in Novak v Nationwide Mut 2003However, no agent of plaintiff ever signed this proposed written agreement. 7 As discussed in note 3, the proposed written version of the oral dlo agreement provided that defendant would pay plaintiff 1.75 percent commissions in my 2000, as opposed to the 1.5 percent commissions provided for in the oral dlo agreement. 8 There is no dispute that defendant acted on its belief that plaintiff accepted the terms of the oral dlo agreement by paying plaintiff commis *622 sions according to the reduced rates and base price set forth in the oral dlo agreement. 9 We note that, in Novak v Nationwide Mut | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Eerdmans v. Maki
green
2 sentences1999Eerdmans v Maki, 226 Mich App 360, 366 ; 573 NW2d 329 (1997). 1999Eerdmans v Maki, 226 Mich App 360, 366 ; 573 NW2d 329 (1997). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.