14 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Portelli v. I R Construction Products Co.green2 sentences1999“When a party requests an instruction that is not covered by the standard jury instructions, the trial court may, in its discretion, give additional, concise, understandable, conversational, and nonargumentative instructions, provided they are applicable and accurately state the law.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 216 Mich App 707, 713-714 ; 550 NW2d 797 (1996), affd 457 Mich 593 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998); see also MCR 2.516(D)(4). “[I]t is well-settled that, where a purchaser is a ‘sophisticated user’ of a manufacturer’s product, the purchaser is in the best position to warn the ultimate user of the 1999“When a party requests an instruction that is not covered by the standard jury instructions, the trial court may, in its discretion, give additional, concise, understandable, conversational, and nonargumentative instructions, provided they are applicable and accurately state the law.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 216 Mich App 707, 713-714 ; 550 NW2d 797 (1996), affd 457 Mich 593 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998); see also MCR 2.516(D)(4). “[I]t is well-settled that, where a purchaser is a ‘sophisticated user’ of a manufacturer’s product, the purchaser is in the best position to warn the ultimate user of the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Chastain v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens 2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Jimkoski v. Shupe
green
2 sentences2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens 2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Hill v. Hoig
green
2 sentences2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens 2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Attard v. Citizens Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens 2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Shivers v. Schmiege
green
2 sentences2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens 2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Douglas v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens 2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens | 2 | 2018–2018 |
O'Neal v. St. John Hospital & Medical Center
green
2 sentences2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens 2018Claims of error challenging a verdict form are reviewed in the same manner as claims of instructional error.66 A preserved claim of instructional error is generally reviewed de novo.67 “However, the trial court’s determination that a jury instruction is accurate and applicable to the case is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”68 If a party requests a standard jury instruction, the instruction should be given if it is applicable and accurately states the law.69 Jury instructions must be viewed as a whole and, “[e]ven if somewhat imperfect, instructions do not create error 63 Attard v Citizens | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Lewis v. LeGrow
green
2 sentences2017We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s determination whether a standard jury instruction is applicable and accurate.” Lewis, 258 Mich App at 211 . 2017We review for abuse of discretion the trial court’s determination whether a standard jury instruction is applicable and accurate.” Lewis, 258 Mich App at 211 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Chmielewski v. Xermac, Inc
green
2 sentences1999“When a party requests an instruction that is not covered by the standard jury instructions, the trial court may, in its discretion, give additional, concise, understandable, conversational, and nonargumentative instructions, provided they are applicable and accurately state the law.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 216 Mich App 707, 713-714 ; 550 NW2d 797 (1996), affd 457 Mich 593 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998); see also MCR 2.516(D)(4). “[I]t is well-settled that, where a purchaser is a ‘sophisticated user’ of a manufacturer’s product, the purchaser is in the best position to warn the ultimate user of the 1999“When a party requests an instruction that is not covered by the standard jury instructions, the trial court may, in its discretion, give additional, concise, understandable, conversational, and nonargumentative instructions, provided they are applicable and accurately state the law.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 216 Mich App 707, 713-714 ; 550 NW2d 797 (1996), affd 457 Mich 593 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998); see also MCR 2.516(D)(4). “[I]t is well-settled that, where a purchaser is a ‘sophisticated user’ of a manufacturer’s product, the purchaser is in the best position to warn the ultimate user of the | 2 | 1997–1999 |
Houston v. GRAND TRUNK WESTERN RAILROAD CO.
green
2 sentences1991MCR 2.516(D)(4); Houston v Grand Trunk W R Co, 159 Mich App 602, 608-609 ; 407 NW2d 52 (1987). 1991MCR 2.516(D)(4); Houston v Grand Trunk W R Co, 159 Mich App 602, 608-609 ; 407 NW2d 52 (1987). | 2 | 1990–1991 |
Young v. E W Bliss Co.
green
2 sentences1987Young v E W Bliss Co, 130 Mich App 363 ; 343 NW2d 553 (1983); MCR *609 2.516(D). 1987Young v E W Bliss Co, 130 Mich App 363 ; 343 NW2d 553 (1983); MCR *609 2.516(D). | 2 | 1985–1987 |
Olepa v. Olepa
green
1 sentence2025This Court recognized that the statute required the circuit court to hold a hearing at which the grandparent was permitted “an opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 702 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Sabin
green
1 sentence2021See MRE 105; Sabin (After Remand), 463 Mich at 56 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
DeRose v. DeRose
green
1 sentence2015At the hearing, parties submitting affidavits shall be allowed an opportunity to be heard.” Id. *644 However, because “[a] parent has a fundamental right, one that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of his or her child. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Chmielewski v. Xermac, Inc
green
2 sentences1999“When a party requests an instruction that is not covered by the standard jury instructions, the trial court may, in its discretion, give additional, concise, understandable, conversational, and nonargumentative instructions, provided they are applicable and accurately state the law.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 216 Mich App 707, 713-714 ; 550 NW2d 797 (1996), affd 457 Mich 593 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998); see also MCR 2.516(D)(4). “[I]t is well-settled that, where a purchaser is a ‘sophisticated user’ of a manufacturer’s product, the purchaser is in the best position to warn the ultimate user of the 1999“When a party requests an instruction that is not covered by the standard jury instructions, the trial court may, in its discretion, give additional, concise, understandable, conversational, and nonargumentative instructions, provided they are applicable and accurately state the law.” Chmielewski v Xermac, Inc, 216 Mich App 707, 713-714 ; 550 NW2d 797 (1996), affd 457 Mich 593 ; 580 NW2d 817 (1998); see also MCR 2.516(D)(4). “[I]t is well-settled that, where a purchaser is a ‘sophisticated user’ of a manufacturer’s product, the purchaser is in the best position to warn the ultimate user of the | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Wengel v. Herfert
neutral
2 sentences1996MCR 2.516(D)(4); Wengel v Herfert, 189 Mich App 427, 431 ; 473 NW2d 741 (1991). 1996MCR 2.516(D)(4); Wengel v Herfert, 189 Mich App 427, 431 ; 473 NW2d 741 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.