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 1878–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. Weitzgreen1 sentence2019The Court observed that MCR 8.121 computed attorney fees on the “net sum recovered after deducting from the amount recovered all disbursements properly chargeable to the enforcement of the claim or prosecution of the action[.]’ ” Id. at 300 (emphasis in Bennett). | 1 | 1 |
Morris v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences1996See also Morris v Detroit, 189 Mich App 271 ; 472 NW2d 43 (1991). 1996See also Morris v Detroit, 189 Mich App 271 ; 472 NW2d 43 (1991). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Henry Ford Hospitalgreen2 sentences1996Scott v Henry Ford Hosp, 199 Mich App 241, 243, n 1 ; 501 NW2d 259 (1993) (emphasis added), citing McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 60 Mich App 81, 88 ; 230 NW2d 318 (1975). 1996Scott v Henry Ford Hosp, 199 Mich App 241, 243, n 1 ; 501 NW2d 259 (1993) (emphasis added), citing McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 60 Mich App 81, 88 ; 230 NW2d 318 (1975). | 1 | 1 |
Webber v. Webbergreen1 sentence1897See, also, Webber v. Webber, 109 Mich. 147 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
McNitt v. Citco Drilling Co.
neutral
2 sentences2002It does not matter that a representative actually brought the suit on behalf of the children’s estates. “[T]he personal representative . . . who asserts a cause of action on behalf of a deceased stands in the deceased’s place for all purposes [i]ncident to the enforcement of that claim, including rights and privileges personal to the deceased in his lifetime.” McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 60 Mich App 81, 88 ; 230 NW2d 318 (1975). 2002It does not matter that a representative actually brought the suit on behalf of the children’s estates. “[T]he personal representative . . . who asserts a cause of action on behalf of a deceased stands in the deceased’s place for all purposes [i]ncident to the enforcement of that claim, including rights and privileges personal to the deceased in his lifetime.” McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 60 Mich App 81, 88 ; 230 NW2d 318 (1975). | 4 | 1993–2002 |
Yankee Springs Township v. Fox
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 612 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Allstate Insurance v. Muszynski
green
2 sentences2003Indeed, this Court recently stated: “[T]he personal representative . . . who asserts a cause of action on behalf of a deceased stands in the deceased’s place for all purposes [i]ncident to the enforcement of that claim, including the rights and privileges personal to the decedent in his lifetime.” Even though the wrongful death act is for the benefit of certain persons, the cause of action is a derivative one whereby the personal representative of the deceased stands in the latter’s shoes. [Allstate Ins Co v Muszynski, 253 Mich App 138, 142 ; 655 NW2d 260 (2002) (citations omitted).] Here, bec 2003Indeed, this Court recently stated: “[T]he personal representative . . . who asserts a cause of action on behalf of a deceased stands in the deceased’s place for all purposes [i]ncident to the enforcement of that claim, including the rights and privileges personal to the decedent in his lifetime.” Even though the wrongful death act is for the benefit of certain persons, the cause of action is a derivative one whereby the personal representative of the deceased stands in the latter’s shoes. [Allstate Ins Co v Muszynski, 253 Mich App 138, 142 ; 655 NW2d 260 (2002) (citations omitted).] Here, bec | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Michigan State Afl-Cio v. Miller
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 1253 . 1998Id. at 1253 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
McNitt v. Citco Drilling Co.
green
2 sentences1993McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 60 Mich App 81, 88 ; 230 NW2d 318 (1975), aff'd 397 Mich 384 ; 245 NW2d 18 (1976). 2 We reject plaintiffs argument that the requirement that a personal representative be appointed shortens the period of limitation. 1993McNitt v Citco Drilling Co, 60 Mich App 81, 88 ; 230 NW2d 318 (1975), aff'd 397 Mich 384 ; 245 NW2d 18 (1976). 2 We reject plaintiffs argument that the requirement that a personal representative be appointed shortens the period of limitation. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
South Carolina v. Gaillard
green
1 sentence1930No one can claim to have a vested right in any particular mode of procedure for an enforcement or defense of his rights." In South Carolina v. Gaillard , 101 U.S. 433 , it was held: "It is well settled that if a statute giving a special remedy is repealed without a saving clause in favor of pending suits, all suits must stop where the repeal finds them. | 1 | 1930–1930 |
Moran v. Moran
red
2 sentences1929And when g, testator declares in his will that his several bequests are made upon the condition that the legatees acquiesce in the provisions of his will, the courts wisely hold that no legatee shall without compliance with that condition receive his bounty, or be put in a posi *517 tion to use it in the effort to thwart his expressed purposes. ’ ’ We shall quote at length from but one other decision which sustains the full enforcement of the rule, one from the Supreme Court of Iowa, Moran v. Moran, 144 Iowa, 451 ( 123 N. W. 202 , 30 L. 1929And when g, testator declares in his will that his several bequests are made upon the condition that the legatees acquiesce in the provisions of his will, the courts wisely hold that no legatee shall without compliance with that condition receive his bounty, or be put in a posi *517 tion to use it in the effort to thwart his expressed purposes. ’ ’ We shall quote at length from but one other decision which sustains the full enforcement of the rule, one from the Supreme Court of Iowa, Moran v. Moran, 144 Iowa, 451 ( 123 N. W. 202 , 30 L. | 1 | 1929–1929 |
Brinkerhoff v. Marvin
green
1 sentence1878Brinkerhoff v. Marvin, 5 Johns. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
Cooper v. Bigly
green
1 sentence1878Cooper v. Bigly, 13 Mich., 463 . | 1 | 1878–1878 |
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.