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.
15 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2026 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reed v. Yackellgreen2 sentences2023See id. 2023See id. | 2 | 2 |
Szydlowski v. General Motors Corp.yellow2 sentences2005In announcing a shared jurisdiction paradigm when determining whether the WDCA applies to a claim, Sewell overruled Szydlowski, supra. In Szydlowski , we held that “a plaintiffs remedy against an employer based on an injury allegedly arising out of an employment relationship properly belongs within the workmen’s compensation department for initial determination as to jurisdiction and liability.’’ [Szydlowski, supra at 359, quoting Herman, supra at 691 (emphasis supplied).] This Court explained in Szydlowski that “the procedures for workmen’s compensation cases have been statutorily established 2005In announcing a shared jurisdiction paradigm when determining whether the WDCA applies to a claim, Sewell overruled Szydlowski, supra. In Szydlowski , we held that “a plaintiffs remedy against an employer based on an injury allegedly arising out of an employment relationship properly belongs within the workmen’s compensation department for initial determination as to jurisdiction and liability.’’ [Szydlowski, supra at 359, quoting Herman, supra at 691 (emphasis supplied).] This Court explained in Szydlowski that “the procedures for workmen’s compensation cases have been statutorily established | 1 | 1 |
Herman v. Theisgreen2 sentences2005In Szydlowski , we held that "a plaintiff's remedy against an employer based on an injury allegedly arising out of an employment relationship properly belongs within the workmen's compensation department for initial determination as to jurisdiction and liability. " [ Szydlowski, supra at 359 , 245 N.W.2d 26 , quoting Herman, supra at 691 , 160 N.W.2d 365 (emphasis supplied).] This Court explained in Szydlowski that "the procedures for workmen's compensation cases have been statutorily established. [ Herman ] properly cautions us against a shortcut or circumvention of those procedures." Szydlow 2005In announcing a shared jurisdiction paradigm when determining whether the WDCA applies to a claim, Sewell overruled Szydlowski, supra. In Szydlowski , we held that “a plaintiffs remedy against an employer based on an injury allegedly arising out of an employment relationship properly belongs within the workmen’s compensation department for initial determination as to jurisdiction and liability.’’ [Szydlowski, supra at 359, quoting Herman, supra at 691 (emphasis supplied).] This Court explained in Szydlowski that “the procedures for workmen’s compensation cases have been statutorily established | 1 | 1 |
Herbolsheimer v. SMS Holding Co., Inc.green2 sentences2000Accordingly, we find no reason to apply the exclusive remedy provisions of the WDCA to bar the employee's cause of action." Id. at 184 , 289 N.W.2d 708 ; see also Herbolsheimer, supra at 243-246 , 608 N.W.2d 487 (discussing the judicially created "dual-persona doctrine" exception to the WDCA, which provides the basis for a plaintiff employee to bring a tort suit in addition to a claim for worker's compensation benefits when "the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer." Id. at 245 , 608 N.W.2d 487 , citing Howard v. White, 447 Mich. 3 2000Accordingly, we find no reason to apply the exclusive remedy provisions of the WDCA to bar the employee's cause of action." Id. at 184 , 289 N.W.2d 708 ; see also Herbolsheimer, supra at 243-246 , 608 N.W.2d 487 (discussing the judicially created "dual-persona doctrine" exception to the WDCA, which provides the basis for a plaintiff employee to bring a tort suit in addition to a claim for worker's compensation benefits when "the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer." Id. at 245 , 608 N.W.2d 487 , citing Howard v. White, 447 Mich. 3 | 1 | 1 |
Peoples v. Chrysler Corp.green2 sentences1981See Peoples v Chrysler Corp, 98 Mich App 277 ; 296 NW2d 237 (1980), Robards v Estate of Leopold J Kantzler, 98 Mich App 414 ; 296 NW2d 265 (1980). 1981See Peoples v Chrysler Corp, 98 Mich App 277 ; 296 NW2d 237 (1980), Robards v Estate of Leopold J Kantzler, 98 Mich App 414 ; 296 NW2d 265 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
Higgins v. Monroe Evening Newsgreen2 sentences1977See Higgins, supra. Under these circumstances, I would hold that the logical test to use in deciding whether or not defendant can use the WDCA as a shield against the plaintiff must be the WDCA test, not the control test. 1977See Higgins, supra. Under these circumstances, I would hold that the logical test to use in deciding whether or not defendant can use the WDCA as a shield against the plaintiff must be the WDCA test, not the control test. | 1 | 1 |
Chester v. World Football Leaguegreen2 sentences1977Chester v World Football League, supra, at 462. 1977Chester v World Football League, supra, at 462. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scott Wittenberg v. Bulldog Onsite Solutions LLC
green
2 sentences2024“An employee who falls within the WDCA’s framework is subject to the exclusive-remedy provision of the act.” Id. 2024Consistent with this, “[a]n employee who falls within the WDCA’s framework is subject to the exclusive-remedy provision of the act, MCL 418.131(1).” Id. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Mathis v. Interstate Motor Freight System
green
2 sentences2000Accordingly, we find no reason to apply the exclusive remedy provisions of the wdca to bar the employee’s cause of action.” Id. at 184 ; see also Herbolsheimer, supra at 243-246 (discussing the judicially created “dual-persona doctrine” exception to the wdca, which provides the basis for a plaintiff employee to bring a tort suit in addition to a claim for worker’s compensation benefits when “the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer.” Id. at 245 , citing Howard v White, 447 Mich 395, 399-400 ; 523 NW2d 220 [1994], and Wells v Firest 2000Accordingly, we find no reason to apply the exclusive remedy provisions of the WDCA to bar the employee's cause of action." Id. at 184 , 289 N.W.2d 708 ; see also Herbolsheimer, supra at 243-246 , 608 N.W.2d 487 (discussing the judicially created "dual-persona doctrine" exception to the WDCA, which provides the basis for a plaintiff employee to bring a tort suit in addition to a claim for worker's compensation benefits when "the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer." Id. at 245 , 608 N.W.2d 487 , citing Howard v. White, 447 Mich. 3 | 2 | 1981–2000 |
Barnard Manufacturing Co. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc.
green
2 sentences2026This argument fails because defendant “did not have to lay the foundation for the admission of the [test results] in order for the court to consider them on a motion for summary disposition as long as there was a plausible basis for the admission of the [results].” Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich App 362, 373 ; 775 NW2d 618 (2009). 2026This argument fails because defendant “did not have to lay the foundation for the admission of the [test results] in order for the court to consider them on a motion for summary disposition as long as there was a plausible basis for the admission of the [results].” Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich App 362, 373 ; 775 NW2d 618 (2009). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Andrejwski v. Wolverine Coal Co.
green
2 sentences2005The WDCA scheme is a complete departure from the common law and equity jurisprudence, as this Court recognized in Andrejwski v Wolverine Coal Co, 182 Mich 298, 302-303 ; 148 NW 684 (1914): The act in question, like all similar acts, provides for compensation, and not for damages, and in its consideration and construction all of the rules of law and procedure, which apply to recover damages for negligently causing injury or death, are in these cases no longer applicable, and there is substituted a new code of procedure fixed and determined by the act in question. [Emphasis supplied.] The shared 2005The WDCA scheme is a complete departure from the common law and equity jurisprudence, as this Court recognized in Andrejwski v Wolverine Coal Co, 182 Mich 298, 302-303 ; 148 NW 684 (1914): The act in question, like all similar acts, provides for compensation, and not for damages, and in its consideration and construction all of the rules of law and procedure, which apply to recover damages for negligently causing injury or death, are in these cases no longer applicable, and there is substituted a new code of procedure fixed and determined by the act in question. [Emphasis supplied.] The shared | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
green
2 sentences2000Accordingly, we find no reason to apply the exclusive remedy provisions of the WDCA to bar the employee's cause of action." Id. at 184 , 289 N.W.2d 708 ; see also Herbolsheimer, supra at 243-246 , 608 N.W.2d 487 (discussing the judicially created "dual-persona doctrine" exception to the WDCA, which provides the basis for a plaintiff employee to bring a tort suit in addition to a claim for worker's compensation benefits when "the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer." Id. at 245 , 608 N.W.2d 487 , citing Howard v. White, 447 Mich. 3 2000Accordingly, we find no reason to apply the exclusive remedy provisions of the WDCA to bar the employee's cause of action." Id. at 184 , 289 N.W.2d 708 ; see also Herbolsheimer, supra at 243-246 , 608 N.W.2d 487 (discussing the judicially created "dual-persona doctrine" exception to the WDCA, which provides the basis for a plaintiff employee to bring a tort suit in addition to a claim for worker's compensation benefits when "the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer." Id. at 245 , 608 N.W.2d 487 , citing Howard v. White, 447 Mich. 3 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Howard v. White
green
2 sentences2000Accordingly, we find no reason to apply the exclusive remedy provisions of the WDCA to bar the employee's cause of action." Id. at 184 , 289 N.W.2d 708 ; see also Herbolsheimer, supra at 243-246 , 608 N.W.2d 487 (discussing the judicially created "dual-persona doctrine" exception to the WDCA, which provides the basis for a plaintiff employee to bring a tort suit in addition to a claim for worker's compensation benefits when "the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer." Id. at 245 , 608 N.W.2d 487 , citing Howard v. White, 447 Mich. 3 2000Accordingly, we find no reason to apply the exclusive remedy provisions of the WDCA to bar the employee's cause of action." Id. at 184 , 289 N.W.2d 708 ; see also Herbolsheimer, supra at 243-246 , 608 N.W.2d 487 (discussing the judicially created "dual-persona doctrine" exception to the WDCA, which provides the basis for a plaintiff employee to bring a tort suit in addition to a claim for worker's compensation benefits when "the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer." Id. at 245 , 608 N.W.2d 487 , citing Howard v. White, 447 Mich. 3 | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Simkins v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2000MCL 418.301(3); MSA 17.237(301)(3) provides, in part: "An employee going to or from his or her work, while on the premises where the employee's work is to be performed, and within a reasonable time before and after his or her working hours, is presumed to be in the course of his or her employment." See Simkins v. General Motors Corp. (After Remand), 453 Mich. 703, 712 , 556 N.W.2d 839 (1996). 2000MCL 418.301(3); MSA 17.237(301)(3) provides, in part: "An employee going to or from his or her work, while on the premises where the employee's work is to be performed, and within a reasonable time before and after his or her working hours, is presumed to be in the course of his or her employment." See Simkins v. General Motors Corp. (After Remand), 453 Mich. 703, 712 , 556 N.W.2d 839 (1996). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Jones v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences1995While the wdca bars a claim of contribution against an employer or coemployee for payment of injuries sustained by the employee in the course of employment, Downie v Kent Products, Inc, 420 Mich 197, 219 ; 362 NW2d 605 (1984); Jones v General Motors Corp, 136 Mich App 251, 257 ; 355 NW2d 646 (1984), Hertz’ contribution *248 claim under MCL 600.2925a; MSA 27A.2925(1) was not the basis of the trial court’s judgment. 1995While the wdca bars a claim of contribution against an employer or coemployee for payment of injuries sustained by the employee in the course of employment, Downie v Kent Products, Inc, 420 Mich 197, 219 ; 362 NW2d 605 (1984); Jones v General Motors Corp, 136 Mich App 251, 257 ; 355 NW2d 646 (1984), Hertz’ contribution *248 claim under MCL 600.2925a; MSA 27A.2925(1) was not the basis of the trial court’s judgment. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Downie v. Kent Products, Inc
green
2 sentences1995While the wdca bars a claim of contribution against an employer or coemployee for payment of injuries sustained by the employee in the course of employment, Downie v Kent Products, Inc, 420 Mich 197, 219 ; 362 NW2d 605 (1984); Jones v General Motors Corp, 136 Mich App 251, 257 ; 355 NW2d 646 (1984), Hertz’ contribution *248 claim under MCL 600.2925a; MSA 27A.2925(1) was not the basis of the trial court’s judgment. 1995While the wdca bars a claim of contribution against an employer or coemployee for payment of injuries sustained by the employee in the course of employment, Downie v Kent Products, Inc, 420 Mich 197, 219 ; 362 NW2d 605 (1984); Jones v General Motors Corp, 136 Mich App 251, 257 ; 355 NW2d 646 (1984), Hertz’ contribution *248 claim under MCL 600.2925a; MSA 27A.2925(1) was not the basis of the trial court’s judgment. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Kenyon v. Second Precinct Lounge
green
2 sentences1995Kenyon v Second Precinct Lounge, 177 Mich App 492, 504 ; 442 NW2d 696 (1989). 1995Kenyon v Second Precinct Lounge, 177 Mich App 492, 504 ; 442 NW2d 696 (1989). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Agee v. Ford Motor Co.
green
2 sentences1995Agee v Ford Motor Co, 208 Mich App 363 ; 528 NW2d 768 (1995); Schefsky v Evening News Ass’n, 169 Mich App 223, 226 ; 425 NW2d 768 (1988). 1995Agee v Ford Motor Co, 208 Mich App 363 ; 528 NW2d 768 (1995); Schefsky v Evening News Ass’n, 169 Mich App 223, 226 ; 425 NW2d 768 (1988). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Schefsky v. Evening News Ass'n
green
2 sentences1995Agee v Ford Motor Co, 208 Mich App 363 ; 528 NW2d 768 (1995); Schefsky v Evening News Ass’n, 169 Mich App 223, 226 ; 425 NW2d 768 (1988). 1995Agee v Ford Motor Co, 208 Mich App 363 ; 528 NW2d 768 (1995); Schefsky v Evening News Ass’n, 169 Mich App 223, 226 ; 425 NW2d 768 (1988). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Glass v. Drieborg
neutral
2 sentences1993Thus, it should not have been reached by the Court of Appeals, nor is it appropriately decided on appeal in this Court. 48 See, e.g., Glass v Drieborg, 296 Mich 30, 33 ; 295 NW 547 (1941). 1993Thus, it should not have been reached by the Court of Appeals, nor is it appropriately decided on appeal in this Court. 48 See, e.g., Glass v Drieborg, 296 Mich 30, 33 ; 295 NW 547 (1941). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.
yellow
2 sentences1988Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 427 Mich 1 ; 398 NW2d 882 (1986). 1988Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 427 Mich 1 ; 398 NW2d 882 (1986). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences1986Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 140 Mich App 699, 702-703 ; 364 NW2d 286 (1984), lv gtd 422 Mich 939 (1985), and cases cited therein. 1986Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 140 Mich App 699, 702-703 ; 364 NW2d 286 (1984), lv gtd 422 Mich 939 (1985), and cases cited therein. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Kissinger v. Mannor
green
2 sentences1984Seals v Henry Ford Hospital, 123 Mich App 329 ; 333 NW2d 272 (1983); Kissinger v Mannor, 92 Mich App 572 ; 285 NW2d 214 (1979); Broaddus v Ferndale Fastener Div, Ring Screw Works, 84 Mich App 593 ; 269 NW2d 689 (1978), lv den 403 Mich 850 (1978). 1984Seals v Henry Ford Hospital, 123 Mich App 329 ; 333 NW2d 272 (1983); Kissinger v Mannor, 92 Mich App 572 ; 285 NW2d 214 (1979); Broaddus v Ferndale Fastener Div, Ring Screw Works, 84 Mich App 593 ; 269 NW2d 689 (1978), lv den 403 Mich 850 (1978). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Seals v. Henry Ford Hospital
green
2 sentences1984Seals v Henry Ford Hospital, 123 Mich App 329 ; 333 NW2d 272 (1983); Kissinger v Mannor, 92 Mich App 572 ; 285 NW2d 214 (1979); Broaddus v Ferndale Fastener Div, Ring Screw Works, 84 Mich App 593 ; 269 NW2d 689 (1978), lv den 403 Mich 850 (1978). 1984Seals v Henry Ford Hospital, 123 Mich App 329 ; 333 NW2d 272 (1983); Kissinger v Mannor, 92 Mich App 572 ; 285 NW2d 214 (1979); Broaddus v Ferndale Fastener Div, Ring Screw Works, 84 Mich App 593 ; 269 NW2d 689 (1978), lv den 403 Mich 850 (1978). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Broaddus v. Ferndale Fastener Division, Ring Screw Works
green
2 sentences1984Seals v Henry Ford Hospital, 123 Mich App 329 ; 333 NW2d 272 (1983); Kissinger v Mannor, 92 Mich App 572 ; 285 NW2d 214 (1979); Broaddus v Ferndale Fastener Div, Ring Screw Works, 84 Mich App 593 ; 269 NW2d 689 (1978), lv den 403 Mich 850 (1978). 1984Seals v Henry Ford Hospital, 123 Mich App 329 ; 333 NW2d 272 (1983); Kissinger v Mannor, 92 Mich App 572 ; 285 NW2d 214 (1979); Broaddus v Ferndale Fastener Div, Ring Screw Works, 84 Mich App 593 ; 269 NW2d 689 (1978), lv den 403 Mich 850 (1978). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Robards v. Estate of Kantzler
green
2 sentences1981See Peoples v Chrysler Corp, 98 Mich App 277 ; 296 NW2d 237 (1980), Robards v Estate of Leopold J Kantzler, 98 Mich App 414 ; 296 NW2d 265 (1980). 1981See Peoples v Chrysler Corp, 98 Mich App 277 ; 296 NW2d 237 (1980), Robards v Estate of Leopold J Kantzler, 98 Mich App 414 ; 296 NW2d 265 (1980). | 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.