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.
12 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2023 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Acorn Investment Co v. Michigan Basic Property Insurance Assngreen1 sentence2022But this argument from plaintiffs ignores the plain language of the court rule, which only requires that “[a]nother action has been initiated . . . .” MCR 2.116(C)(6); see also Acorn Investment Co v Mich Basic Prop Ins Ass’n, 495 Mich 338, 350 ; 852 NW2d 22 (2014) (“[W]hen the language of the rule is unambiguous, it must be enforced as written.”). | 1 | 1 |
Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc v. Canton Charter Townshipgreen2 sentences2009See Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc v Canton Charter Twp, 269 Mich App 365, 371 ; 711 NW2d 391 (2006). 2009See Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc v Canton Charter Twp, 269 Mich App 365, 371 ; 711 NW2d 391 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
Department of Transportation v. Dylgreen2 sentences1998In Dep’t of Transportation v Dyl, supra at 38-39, the Court of Appeals opined that the purpose of the court rule in motivating parties to settle would be negated unless a separate and additional attorney fee award could be recovered. 1998Second, however, duplicative recovery was not intended in this case, as is noted below. [11] In Dep't of Transportation v. Dyl, supra at 38-39, 441 N.W.2d 18 , the Court of Appeals opined that the purpose of the court rule in motivating parties to settle would be negated unless a separate and additional attorney fee award could be recovered. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Vyletel-Rivard v. Rivard
green
2 sentences2023“If judicial construction is required, this Court must adopt a construction that best accomplishes the purpose of the court rule.” Rivard, 286 Mich App at 22 . 2013While the Court may consider a variety of factors, it should always use common sense.” Vyletel-Rivard v Rivard, 286 Mich App 13, 22 ; 777 NW2d 722 (2009) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2013–2023 |
African Methodist Episcopal Church v. Shoulders
green
2 sentences2021The purpose of the court rule “is to protect defendant[s] from the abusive practice of dismissal after much time and effort has been put into a lawsuit[.]” Id. (discussing a prior version of MCR 2.504(A)(2)). 2021The purpose of the court rule “is to protect defendant[s] from the abusive practice of dismissal after much time and effort has been put into a lawsuit[.]” Id. (discussing a prior version of MCR 2.504(A)(2)). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Linden v. Citizens Insurance Company of America
neutral
1 sentence2023“Every word of the [rule] is presumed to have some meaning, so courts should avoid any construction that would render any part of the [rule] surplusage or nugatory.” Linden v Citizens Ins Co of America, 308 Mich App 89, 93 ; 862 NW2d 438 (2014). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Smith v. Henry Ford Hospital
green
1 sentence1997Id. *434 c Defendant argues that the term “verdict” as defined in both MCR 2.403(O)(2) and MCR 2.405(A)(4) excludes modifications to the verdict such as the trebling of damages. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Larson v. Auto-Owners Insurance
green
1 sentence1997Larson, supra at 332 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
People v. Oliver
green
2 sentences1987People v Oliver, 111 Mich App 734, 758 ; 314 NW2d 740 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 970 (1982). 1987People v Oliver, 111 Mich App 734, 758 ; 314 NW2d 740 (1981), lv den 414 Mich 970 (1982). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Maljak v. Murphy
green
2 sentences1982Appellant draws this Court’s attention to the cases of Maljak v Murphy, 385 Mich 210 ; 188 NW2d 539 (1971), where an attorney received a large fee immediately prior to the suicide of his client, a defendant in a murder trial, where the court found unjust enrichment and found valid an order directing the attorney to return part of the fee, Haskins v Bell, *606 373 Mich 389 ; 129 NW2d 390 (1964), where the Court found that an attorney had retained award checks of clients in a fee dispute for a number of years and deemed the practice "inexcusable conduct”, and Merrill v Grant, 344 Mich 1 ; 73 NW2 1982Appellant draws this Court’s attention to the cases of Maljak v Murphy, 385 Mich 210 ; 188 NW2d 539 (1971), where an attorney received a large fee immediately prior to the suicide of his client, a defendant in a murder trial, where the court found unjust enrichment and found valid an order directing the attorney to return part of the fee, Haskins v Bell, *606 373 Mich 389 ; 129 NW2d 390 (1964), where the Court found that an attorney had retained award checks of clients in a fee dispute for a number of years and deemed the practice "inexcusable conduct”, and Merrill v Grant, 344 Mich 1 ; 73 NW2 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Haskins v. Bell
neutral
2 sentences1982Appellant draws this Court’s attention to the cases of Maljak v Murphy, 385 Mich 210 ; 188 NW2d 539 (1971), where an attorney received a large fee immediately prior to the suicide of his client, a defendant in a murder trial, where the court found unjust enrichment and found valid an order directing the attorney to return part of the fee, Haskins v Bell, *606 373 Mich 389 ; 129 NW2d 390 (1964), where the Court found that an attorney had retained award checks of clients in a fee dispute for a number of years and deemed the practice "inexcusable conduct”, and Merrill v Grant, 344 Mich 1 ; 73 NW2 1982Appellant draws this Court’s attention to the cases of Maljak v Murphy, 385 Mich 210 ; 188 NW2d 539 (1971), where an attorney received a large fee immediately prior to the suicide of his client, a defendant in a murder trial, where the court found unjust enrichment and found valid an order directing the attorney to return part of the fee, Haskins v Bell, *606 373 Mich 389 ; 129 NW2d 390 (1964), where the Court found that an attorney had retained award checks of clients in a fee dispute for a number of years and deemed the practice "inexcusable conduct”, and Merrill v Grant, 344 Mich 1 ; 73 NW2 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Merrill v. Grant
neutral
2 sentences1982Appellant draws this Court’s attention to the cases of Maljak v Murphy, 385 Mich 210 ; 188 NW2d 539 (1971), where an attorney received a large fee immediately prior to the suicide of his client, a defendant in a murder trial, where the court found unjust enrichment and found valid an order directing the attorney to return part of the fee, Haskins v Bell, *606 373 Mich 389 ; 129 NW2d 390 (1964), where the Court found that an attorney had retained award checks of clients in a fee dispute for a number of years and deemed the practice "inexcusable conduct”, and Merrill v Grant, 344 Mich 1 ; 73 NW2 1982Appellant draws this Court’s attention to the cases of Maljak v Murphy, 385 Mich 210 ; 188 NW2d 539 (1971), where an attorney received a large fee immediately prior to the suicide of his client, a defendant in a murder trial, where the court found unjust enrichment and found valid an order directing the attorney to return part of the fee, Haskins v Bell, *606 373 Mich 389 ; 129 NW2d 390 (1964), where the Court found that an attorney had retained award checks of clients in a fee dispute for a number of years and deemed the practice "inexcusable conduct”, and Merrill v Grant, 344 Mich 1 ; 73 NW2 | 1 | 1982–1982 |
In Re Guilty Plea Cases
green
2 sentences1981Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96 ; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). 1981Guilty Plea Cases, 395 Mich 96 ; 235 NW2d 132 (1975). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.