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.
13 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1960–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Curry v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences1976So, Curry v Detroit, 49 Mich App 240, 241, fn 1 ; 211 NW2d 559 (1973), Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 595, fn 1 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975), Lockaby v Wayne County, 63 Mich App 185, 187, fn 1 ; 234 NW2d 444 (1975), Buddy v Department of Natural Resources, supra , and Van Liere v State Highway Department, 59 Mich App 133, 136, fn 1 ; 229 NW2d 369 (1975), held that the defense of governmental immunity was improperly raised by motion for summary judgment and should have been raised by motion for accelerated judgment. 1976So, Curry v Detroit, 49 Mich App 240, 241, fn 1 ; 211 NW2d 559 (1973), Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 595, fn 1 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975), Lockaby v Wayne County, 63 Mich App 185, 187, fn 1 ; 234 NW2d 444 (1975), Buddy v Department of Natural Resources, supra , and Van Liere v State Highway Department, 59 Mich App 133, 136, fn 1 ; 229 NW2d 369 (1975), held that the defense of governmental immunity was improperly raised by motion for summary judgment and should have been raised by motion for accelerated judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Cibor v. Oakwood Hospitalgreen2 sentences1976But in Cibor v Oakwood Hospital, 14 Mich App 1, 3, fn 1 ; 165 NW2d 326 (1968), where a charitable immunity defense was raised by motion, the majority described immunity as a defense which operated "to extinguish or cut off the right to relief even though the facts pleaded would otherwise state a claim", and therefore to be appropriately raised by motion for accelerated judgment under *680 GCR 1963, 116. [7] In Bloss v. Williams, 15 Mich App 228, 231 ; 166 NW2d 520 (1968), motion for accelerated judgment rather than motion for summary judgment was held to be the appropriate means of raising the 1976But in Cibor v Oakwood Hospital, 14 Mich App 1, 3, fn 1 ; 165 NW2d 326 (1968), where a charitable immunity defense was raised by motion, the majority described immunity as a defense which operated "to extinguish or cut off the right to relief even though the facts pleaded would otherwise state a claim", and therefore to be appropriately raised by motion for accelerated judgment under *680 GCR 1963, 116. [7] In Bloss v. Williams, 15 Mich App 228, 231 ; 166 NW2d 520 (1968), motion for accelerated judgment rather than motion for summary judgment was held to be the appropriate means of raising the | 1 | 1 |
Van Liere v. State Highway Departmentgreen2 sentences1976So, Curry v Detroit, 49 Mich App 240, 241, fn 1 ; 211 NW2d 559 (1973), Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 595, fn 1 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975), Lockaby v Wayne County, 63 Mich App 185, 187, fn 1 ; 234 NW2d 444 (1975), Buddy v Department of Natural Resources, supra , and Van Liere v State Highway Department, 59 Mich App 133, 136, fn 1 ; 229 NW2d 369 (1975), held that the defense of governmental immunity was improperly raised by motion for summary judgment and should have been raised by motion for accelerated judgment. 1976So, Curry v Detroit, 49 Mich App 240, 241, fn 1 ; 211 NW2d 559 (1973), Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 595, fn 1 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975), Lockaby v Wayne County, 63 Mich App 185, 187, fn 1 ; 234 NW2d 444 (1975), Buddy v Department of Natural Resources, supra , and Van Liere v State Highway Department, 59 Mich App 133, 136, fn 1 ; 229 NW2d 369 (1975), held that the defense of governmental immunity was improperly raised by motion for summary judgment and should have been raised by motion for accelerated judgment. | 1 | 1 |
Schulte v. American Box Board Co.green2 sentences1960I regard the circuit court’s action as prejudicial to the right of fair trial and due process, and stand again on that which appears over my signature in Schulte v. American Box Board Co., 358 Mich 21, 31, 32 . 1960I regard the circuit court's action as prejudicial to the right of fair trial and due process, and stand again on that which appears over my signature in Schulte v. American Box Board Co., 358 Mich 21, 31, 32 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Parker v. Port Huron Hospital
green
2 sentences2024The Michigan Supreme Court found our state’s guest passenger statute unconstitutional in 1975, explaining that [t]o deny guests recompense for negligently inflicted injury, death or loss cannot be justified as a reasonable means to promote hospitality, foster gratitude, prevent collusion, perjury or fraud, reduce insurance premiums, or protect generous drivers from ‘vexatious litigation' by ungrateful guests or conniving hitchhikers. [Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655, 681 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975) (citation omitted).] The doctrine of charitable immunity met the same fate in Parker 2024The Michigan Supreme Court found our state’s guest passenger statute unconstitutional in 1975, explaining that [t]o deny guests recompense for negligently inflicted injury, death or loss cannot be justified as a reasonable means to promote hospitality, foster gratitude, prevent collusion, perjury or fraud, reduce insurance premiums, or protect generous drivers from ‘vexatious litigation' by ungrateful guests or conniving hitchhikers. [Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655, 681 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975) (citation omitted).] The doctrine of charitable immunity met the same fate in Parker | 10 | 1962–2024 |
Manistee Bank & Trust Co. v. McGowan
green
2 sentences2024The Michigan Supreme Court found our state’s guest passenger statute unconstitutional in 1975, explaining that [t]o deny guests recompense for negligently inflicted injury, death or loss cannot be justified as a reasonable means to promote hospitality, foster gratitude, prevent collusion, perjury or fraud, reduce insurance premiums, or protect generous drivers from ‘vexatious litigation' by ungrateful guests or conniving hitchhikers. [Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655, 681 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975) (citation omitted).] The doctrine of charitable immunity met the same fate in Parker 2024The Michigan Supreme Court found our state’s guest passenger statute unconstitutional in 1975, explaining that [t]o deny guests recompense for negligently inflicted injury, death or loss cannot be justified as a reasonable means to promote hospitality, foster gratitude, prevent collusion, perjury or fraud, reduce insurance premiums, or protect generous drivers from ‘vexatious litigation' by ungrateful guests or conniving hitchhikers. [Manistee Bank & Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich 655, 681 ; 232 NW2d 636 (1975) (citation omitted).] The doctrine of charitable immunity met the same fate in Parker | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Bricker v. Green
green
2 sentences1979The limited retroactive application in Bricker, supra (to pending as well as future cases), could not work a hardship because there could be no detrimental reliance on the doctrine of imputed negligence. 14 By way of contrast, in Parker v Port Huron Hospital, 361 Mich 1 ; 105 NW2d 1 (1960), this Court overturned the doctrine of charitable immunity. 1979The limited retroactive application in Bricker, supra (to pending as well as future cases), could not work a hardship because there could be no detrimental reliance on the doctrine of imputed negligence. [14] By way of contrast, in Parker v Port Huron Hospital, 361 Mich 1 ; 105 NW2d 1 (1960), this Court overturned the doctrine of charitable immunity. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Pittman v. City of Taylor
green
2 sentences1978It is time we recognize that our case-law precedent, as it attempts to distinguish between a governmental and a proprietary function, is "inher ently unsound”. 8 In abrogating common-law judge-made immunity (Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41, 49 ; 247 NW2d 512 [1976]), we recognized the appropriateness of the analysis used to overrule a hospital’s charitable immunity to the governmental immunity area of the law. 1978It is time we recognize that our case-law precedent, as it attempts to distinguish between a governmental and a proprietary function, is "inher ently unsound”. 8 In abrogating common-law judge-made immunity (Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41, 49 ; 247 NW2d 512 [1976]), we recognized the appropriateness of the analysis used to overrule a hospital’s charitable immunity to the governmental immunity area of the law. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Lockaby v. Wayne County
green
2 sentences1976So, Curry v Detroit, 49 Mich App 240, 241, fn 1 ; 211 NW2d 559 (1973), Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 595, fn 1 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975), Lockaby v Wayne County, 63 Mich App 185, 187, fn 1 ; 234 NW2d 444 (1975), Buddy v Department of Natural Resources, supra , and Van Liere v State Highway Department, 59 Mich App 133, 136, fn 1 ; 229 NW2d 369 (1975), held that the defense of governmental immunity was improperly raised by motion for summary judgment and should have been raised by motion for accelerated judgment. 1976So, Curry v Detroit, 49 Mich App 240, 241, fn 1 ; 211 NW2d 559 (1973), Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 595, fn 1 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975), Lockaby v Wayne County, 63 Mich App 185, 187, fn 1 ; 234 NW2d 444 (1975), Buddy v Department of Natural Resources, supra , and Van Liere v State Highway Department, 59 Mich App 133, 136, fn 1 ; 229 NW2d 369 (1975), held that the defense of governmental immunity was improperly raised by motion for summary judgment and should have been raised by motion for accelerated judgment. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Bloss v. Williams
green
2 sentences1976But in Cibor v Oakwood Hospital, 14 Mich App 1, 3, fn 1 ; 165 NW2d 326 (1968), where a charitable immunity defense was raised by motion, the majority described immunity as a defense which operated "to extinguish or cut off the right to relief even though the facts pleaded would otherwise state a claim", and therefore to be appropriately raised by motion for accelerated judgment under *680 GCR 1963, 116. [7] In Bloss v. Williams, 15 Mich App 228, 231 ; 166 NW2d 520 (1968), motion for accelerated judgment rather than motion for summary judgment was held to be the appropriate means of raising the 1976But in Cibor v Oakwood Hospital, 14 Mich App 1, 3, fn 1 ; 165 NW2d 326 (1968), where a charitable immunity defense was raised by motion, the majority described immunity as a defense which operated "to extinguish or cut off the right to relief even though the facts pleaded would otherwise state a claim", and therefore to be appropriately raised by motion for accelerated judgment under *680 GCR 1963, 116. [7] In Bloss v. Williams, 15 Mich App 228, 231 ; 166 NW2d 520 (1968), motion for accelerated judgment rather than motion for summary judgment was held to be the appropriate means of raising the | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Lovitt v. Concord School District
green
2 sentences1976So, Curry v Detroit, 49 Mich App 240, 241, fn 1 ; 211 NW2d 559 (1973), Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 595, fn 1 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975), Lockaby v Wayne County, 63 Mich App 185, 187, fn 1 ; 234 NW2d 444 (1975), Buddy v Department of Natural Resources, supra , and Van Liere v State Highway Department, 59 Mich App 133, 136, fn 1 ; 229 NW2d 369 (1975), held that the defense of governmental immunity was improperly raised by motion for summary judgment and should have been raised by motion for accelerated judgment. 1976So, Curry v Detroit, 49 Mich App 240, 241, fn 1 ; 211 NW2d 559 (1973), Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 595, fn 1 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975), Lockaby v Wayne County, 63 Mich App 185, 187, fn 1 ; 234 NW2d 444 (1975), Buddy v Department of Natural Resources, supra , and Van Liere v State Highway Department, 59 Mich App 133, 136, fn 1 ; 229 NW2d 369 (1975), held that the defense of governmental immunity was improperly raised by motion for summary judgment and should have been raised by motion for accelerated judgment. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Great Northern Railway Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co.
green
2 sentences1961Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 US 358 [ 53 S Ct 145 , 77 L ed 360, 85 ALR 254 ]). 1961Co. v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 US 358 [ 53 S Ct 145 , 77 L ed 360, 85 ALR 254 ]). | 1 | 1961–1961 |
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.