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 1867–1984 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Pricegreen2 sentences1984See People v Price, 126 Mich App 647, 654-655 ; 337 NW2d 614 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .40 (1983); People v Johnson, 110 Mich App 735, 738 ; 313 NW2d 93 (1981); People v Wolak, 110 Mich App 628 ; 313 NW2d 174 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 940 (1982); People v Wilbert, 105 Mich App 631 ; 307 NW2d 388 (1981). 1984See People v Price, 126 Mich App 647, 654-655 ; 337 NW2d 614 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .40 (1983); People v Johnson, 110 Mich App 735, 738 ; 313 NW2d 93 (1981); People v Wolak, 110 Mich App 628 ; 313 NW2d 174 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 940 (1982); People v Wilbert, 105 Mich App 631 ; 307 NW2d 388 (1981). | 1 | 1 |
Northern Securities Co. v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1967At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the- rules of evidence, may "be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any 1 of the following provisions: * * * “(2) The -deposition of a party * * * may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.” Our waxing and now multiloquent difficulty with this unambiguous and simply phrased rule of court recalls Justice Holmes’ pungent remark (Northern Securities Company 1967At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the- rules of evidence, may "be used against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any 1 of the following provisions: * * * “(2) The -deposition of a party * * * may be used by an adverse party for any purpose.” Our waxing and now multiloquent difficulty with this unambiguous and simply phrased rule of court recalls Justice Holmes’ pungent remark (Northern Securities Company | 1 | 1 |
Fox v. Barrett's Estategreen2 sentences1960(Rule No 31, § 1.) “When a deposition has been taken by either party, it may at any time be read by the other party on the trial.” (Rule No 35, § 6, subd [d].) “(d) At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as admissible under the rules of evidence, may be used, against any party who was present or represented at the taking of the deposition or who had due notice thereof, in accordance with any one of the following provisions: “(1) Any deposition may be used by any party for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching th 1960NOTES [1] Page's Ohio Code Anno, § 2317.03. REPORTER. [2] Page's Ohio Code Anno, § 2319.05. REPORTER. [3] See 334 Mich xl and 352 Mich xvii . REPORTER. [4] See Court Rule No 23, § 3 (1945). REPORTER. [5] See Court Rule No 35, § 5 (1945). REPORTER. [6] See Court Rules Nos 40, 41 (1945). REPORTER. [1] (Rule No 31, § 1.) "When a deposition has been taken by either party, it may at any time be read by the other party on the trial." (Rule No 35, § 6, subd [d].) "(d) At the trial or upon the hearing of a motion or an interlocutory proceeding, any part or all of a deposition, so far as ad | 1 | 1 |
Lantinga v. Lantingagreen1 sentence1953See, also, Lantinga v. Lantinga, 318 Mich 78 . | 1 | 1 |
Sommers v. City of Detroitgreen2 sentences1941(Sommers v. City of Detroit, 284 Mich. 67 .) It appears from the record, and is charged in the bill of complaint in the instant case, that the substance of the finding of the lower court upon the hearing of the prior suit was that the construction of such an incinerator plant was not a nuisance per se, and that this court in affirming the decree of the lower court held that the bill of complaint in said cause was prematurely filed. 1941A review of the opinion of this court in Sommers v. City of Detroit, supra, 69, 70, shows that the trial court upon the hearing of that case made the following findings of fact: “1. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Roepcke v. Michigan Central Railroad
neutral
2 sentences1971Co. (1894), 100 Mich 541 , 547: “It is too well established to require the citation of authority that the case must be heard in this Court upon the claim and theory upon which it was tried in the court below.” Roepcke came to appeal upon its specifically pleaded and tried theory of recovery, just as this case of Marietta came up on its correspondingly pleaded and tried theory of recovery. 1971Co. (1894), 100 Mich 541 , 547: "It is too well established to require the citation of authority that the case must be heard in this Court upon the claim and theory upon which it was tried in the court below." Roepcke came to appeal upon its specifically pleaded and tried theory of recovery, just as this *377 case of Marietta came up on its correspondingly pleaded and tried theory of recovery. | 3 | 1927–1971 |
People v. Johnson
neutral
2 sentences1984See People v Price, 126 Mich App 647, 654-655 ; 337 NW2d 614 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .40 (1983); People v Johnson, 110 Mich App 735, 738 ; 313 NW2d 93 (1981); People v Wolak, 110 Mich App 628 ; 313 NW2d 174 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 940 (1982); People v Wilbert, 105 Mich App 631 ; 307 NW2d 388 (1981). 1984See People v Price, 126 Mich App 647, 654-655 ; 337 NW2d 614 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .40 (1983); People v Johnson, 110 Mich App 735, 738 ; 313 NW2d 93 (1981); People v Wolak, 110 Mich App 628 ; 313 NW2d 174 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 940 (1982); People v Wilbert, 105 Mich App 631 ; 307 NW2d 388 (1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Wolak
green
2 sentences1984See People v Price, 126 Mich App 647, 654-655 ; 337 NW2d 614 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .40 (1983); People v Johnson, 110 Mich App 735, 738 ; 313 NW2d 93 (1981); People v Wolak, 110 Mich App 628 ; 313 NW2d 174 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 940 (1982); People v Wilbert, 105 Mich App 631 ; 307 NW2d 388 (1981). 1984See People v Price, 126 Mich App 647, 654-655 ; 337 NW2d 614 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .40 (1983); People v Johnson, 110 Mich App 735, 738 ; 313 NW2d 93 (1981); People v Wolak, 110 Mich App 628 ; 313 NW2d 174 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 940 (1982); People v Wilbert, 105 Mich App 631 ; 307 NW2d 388 (1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
People v. Wilbert
green
2 sentences1984See People v Price, 126 Mich App 647, 654-655 ; 337 NW2d 614 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .40 (1983); People v Johnson, 110 Mich App 735, 738 ; 313 NW2d 93 (1981); People v Wolak, 110 Mich App 628 ; 313 NW2d 174 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 940 (1982); People v Wilbert, 105 Mich App 631 ; 307 NW2d 388 (1981). 1984See People v Price, 126 Mich App 647, 654-655 ; 337 NW2d 614 (1983), lv den 417 Mich 1100 .40 (1983); People v Johnson, 110 Mich App 735, 738 ; 313 NW2d 93 (1981); People v Wolak, 110 Mich App 628 ; 313 NW2d 174 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 940 (1982); People v Wilbert, 105 Mich App 631 ; 307 NW2d 388 (1981). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Socha v. Passino
green
2 sentences1981Socha v Passino, 405 Mich 458, 471 ; 275 NW2d 243 (1979). 2 Further, the burden of establishing admissibility rests on the party seeking admission of the deposition. 1981Socha v Passino, 405 Mich 458, 471 ; 275 NW2d 243 (1979). 2 Further, the burden of establishing admissibility rests on the party seeking admission of the deposition. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Raniak v. Pokorney
green
1 sentence1953Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the whole or any part of the relief prayed for will be determined by the trial court upon a hearing.” Raniak v. Pokorney, 198 Mich 567 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
West v. Newton
neutral
1 sentence1927In West v. Newton, 229 Mich. 68 , we said of a somewhat similar point: “As the claim that the testimony does not show the plaintiff to be a licensed broker is raised for the first time in this court, we must decline to consider it.” In Roepcke v. Railroad Co., 100 Mich. 541 , it was stated: “It is too well established to require the citation of authority that the case must be heard in this court Upon the claim and theory upon which it was tried in the court below.” *473 In Deloria v. Van Winkle, 162 Mich. 660 , the point was raised for the first time in this court that there was nothing to sho | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Tuttle v. Tuttle
neutral
2 sentences1927In Tuttle v. Tuttle , 48 N.D. 10 , 27 ( 181 N.W. 898 ), it was contended: "That Mr. Justice Robinson, who sat as a member of the court upon the hearing on the appeal and joined in the former decision, was disqualified, and should not have participated in the hearing or determination of the case. * * * "On November 29, 1920, the appellant filed a written petition wherein attention was called to the following statement contained in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Robinson in Tuttle v. Tuttle , 46 N.D. 79 ( 181 N.W. 888 ): " 'It is shown that in January, 1918, defendant commenced an action ag 1927In Tuttle v. Tuttle , 48 N.D. 10 , 27 ( 181 N.W. 898 ), it was contended: "That Mr. Justice Robinson, who sat as a member of the court upon the hearing on the appeal and joined in the former decision, was disqualified, and should not have participated in the hearing or determination of the case. * * * "On November 29, 1920, the appellant filed a written petition wherein attention was called to the following statement contained in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Robinson in Tuttle v. Tuttle , 46 N.D. 79 ( 181 N.W. 888 ): " 'It is shown that in January, 1918, defendant commenced an action ag | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Tuttle v. Tuttle
green
2 sentences1927In Tuttle v. Tuttle , 48 N.D. 10 , 27 ( 181 N.W. 898 ), it was contended: "That Mr. Justice Robinson, who sat as a member of the court upon the hearing on the appeal and joined in the former decision, was disqualified, and should not have participated in the hearing or determination of the case. * * * "On November 29, 1920, the appellant filed a written petition wherein attention was called to the following statement contained in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Robinson in Tuttle v. Tuttle , 46 N.D. 79 ( 181 N.W. 888 ): " 'It is shown that in January, 1918, defendant commenced an action ag 1927In Tuttle v. Tuttle , 48 N.D. 10 , 27 ( 181 N.W. 898 ), it was contended: "That Mr. Justice Robinson, who sat as a member of the court upon the hearing on the appeal and joined in the former decision, was disqualified, and should not have participated in the hearing or determination of the case. * * * "On November 29, 1920, the appellant filed a written petition wherein attention was called to the following statement contained in the opinion prepared by Mr. Justice Robinson in Tuttle v. Tuttle , 46 N.D. 79 ( 181 N.W. 888 ): " 'It is shown that in January, 1918, defendant commenced an action ag | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Deloria v. Van Winkle
neutral
1 sentence1927In West v. Newton, 229 Mich. 68 , we said of a somewhat similar point: “As the claim that the testimony does not show the plaintiff to be a licensed broker is raised for the first time in this court, we must decline to consider it.” In Roepcke v. Railroad Co., 100 Mich. 541 , it was stated: “It is too well established to require the citation of authority that the case must be heard in this court Upon the claim and theory upon which it was tried in the court below.” *473 In Deloria v. Van Winkle, 162 Mich. 660 , the point was raised for the first time in this court that there was nothing to sho | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Stewart v. Carleton
green
1 sentence1894Ste wart v. Carleton, 31 Mich. 270; Diehl v. Zanger, 39 Id. 601. | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Gray v. York
neutral
1 sentence1883Gray v. York supra. A hearing, however, is required, and a tidal of a question of fact must be had; and there is no reason why the rules governing the trial of such issues should not be applied by the court upon the hearing. | 1 | 1883–1883 |
Chaffee v. Chaffee
neutral
1 sentence1867The defendant among the other costs was, by this court, ( 14 Mich. 463 ,) ordered to pay the costs of making and printing the return; subject however to the final determination of this court upon the hearing, whether the same or part of the same should not be returned on account yof the unreasonable length of the record arising froin the great amount of irrelevant testimony introduced by complainant. | 1 | 1867–1867 |
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.