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.
11 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2026 9 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 |
|---|---|---|
Aetna Life Insurance v. Mosesgreen2 sentences2025See Aetna Life Ins Co v Moses, 287 US 530, 540 ; 53 S Ct 231 ; 77 L Ed 477 (1933) (“[B]y the common law the assignee must, in general, sue in the name of the assignor.”); Blackwood v Brown, 32 Mich 104, 107 (1875) (“Previous to the passage of our statute authorizing the assignee of certain choses in action not negotiable to sue and recover the same in his own name, the assignee would have had to sue in the name of the nominal, for the use of the real owner.”). 15 This rule stemmed from a—now long disregarded—hostility toward assignments, which resulted in the 15 The real party in interest rule 2025See Aetna Life Ins Co v Moses, 287 US 530, 540 ; 53 S Ct 231 ; 77 L Ed 477 (1933) (“[B]y the common law the assignee must, in general, sue in the name of the assignor.”); Blackwood v Brown, 32 Mich 104, 107 (1875) (“Previous to the passage of our statute authorizing the assignee of certain choses in action not negotiable to sue and recover the same in his own name, the assignee would have had to sue in the name of the nominal, for the use of the real owner.”). 15 This rule stemmed from a—now long disregarded—hostility toward assignments, which resulted in the 15 The real party in interest rule | 2 | 2 |
Blackwood v. Browngreen2 sentences2025See Aetna Life Ins Co v Moses, 287 US 530, 540 ; 53 S Ct 231 ; 77 L Ed 477 (1933) (“[B]y the common law the assignee must, in general, sue in the name of the assignor.”); Blackwood v Brown, 32 Mich 104, 107 (1875) (“Previous to the passage of our statute authorizing the assignee of certain choses in action not negotiable to sue and recover the same in his own name, the assignee would have had to sue in the name of the nominal, for the use of the real owner.”). 15 This rule stemmed from a—now long disregarded—hostility toward assignments, which resulted in the 15 The real party in interest rule 2025See Aetna Life Ins Co v Moses, 287 US 530, 540 ; 53 S Ct 231 ; 77 L Ed 477 (1933) (“[B]y the common law the assignee must, in general, sue in the name of the assignor.”); Blackwood v Brown, 32 Mich 104, 107 (1875) (“Previous to the passage of our statute authorizing the assignee of certain choses in action not negotiable to sue and recover the same in his own name, the assignee would have had to sue in the name of the nominal, for the use of the real owner.”). 15 This rule stemmed from a—now long disregarded—hostility toward assignments, which resulted in the 15 The real party in interest rule | 2 | 2 |
Barclae v. Zarbgreen2 sentences2024The real party in interest doctrine is a “standing doctrine,” which “recognizes that litigation should be begun only by a party having an interest that will assure sincere and vigorous advocacy.” Barclae v Zarb, 300 Mich App 455, 483 ; 834 NW2d 100 (2013) (citation omitted). 2024The real party in interest doctrine is a “standing doctrine,” which “recognizes that litigation should be begun only by a party having an interest that will assure sincere and vigorous advocacy.” Barclae v Zarb, 300 Mich App 455, 483 ; 834 NW2d 100 (2013) (citation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kearns v. Michigan Iron & Coke Co.
green
2 sentences2025Quoting from Kearns v Mich Iron & Coke Co, 340 Mich 577, 581 ; 66 NW2d 230 (1954), the Court explained that the real party in interest rule was adopted “to protect defendant from being repeatedly harassed by a multiplicity of suits for the same cause of action . . . .” C-Spine Orthopedics, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 20. 2025Quoting from Kearns v Mich Iron & Coke Co, 340 Mich 577, 581 ; 66 NW2d 230 (1954), the Court explained that the real party in interest rule was adopted “to protect defendant from being repeatedly harassed by a multiplicity of suits for the same cause of action . . . .” C-Spine Orthopedics, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 20. | 3 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Mungo
green
2 sentences2025Though the Court also made various statements about the real party in interest rule, such as describing it as a “standing doctrine,” see id. at 106-107 , these comments were neither “necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand” and thus were dicta, Wold Architects & Engineers v Strat, 474 Mich 223 , 232 n 3; 713 NW2d 750 (2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 17 349, 355; 792 NW2d 686 (2010) (LSEA). 2025Though the Court also made various statements about the real party in interest rule, such as describing it as a “standing doctrine,” see id. at 106-107 , these comments were neither “necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand” and thus were dicta, Wold Architects & Engineers v Strat, 474 Mich 223 , 232 n 3; 713 NW2d 750 (2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 17 349, 355; 792 NW2d 686 (2010) (LSEA). | 3 | 2025–2025 |
Cannon Township v. Rockford Public Schools
green
2 sentences2021The real party in interest doctrine is a “standing doctrine” that “recognizes that litigation should be begun only by a party having an interest that will assure sincere and vigorous advocacy” and “protects a defendant from multiple lawsuits for the same cause of action.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]n assignee of a cause of action becomes the real party in interest with respect to that cause of action, inasmuch as the assignment vests in the assignee all rights previously held by the assignor.” Cannon Twp v Rockford Pub Schs, 311 Mich App 403, 412 ; 875 NW2d 242 (2015). “[A 2021The real party in interest doctrine is a “standing doctrine” that “recognizes that litigation should be begun only by a party having an interest that will assure sincere and vigorous advocacy” and “protects a defendant from multiple lawsuits for the same cause of action.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A]n assignee of a cause of action becomes the real party in interest with respect to that cause of action, inasmuch as the assignment vests in the assignee all rights previously held by the assignor.” Cannon Twp v Rockford Pub Schs, 311 Mich App 403, 412 ; 875 NW2d 242 (2015). “[A | 3 | 2021–2024 |
Poy v. Allan
neutral
2 sentences2025In DeLong v Marston, 11 a case from 1944, the defendants argued, among other 7 Poy v Allan, 247 Mich 385, 388 ; 225 NW 532 (1929). 8 Kearns v Mich Iron & Coke Co, 340 Mich 577, 581 ; 66 NW2d 230 (1954) (quotation marks omitted), quoting Poy, 247 Mich at 388 . 2025In DeLong v Marston, 11 a case from 1944, the defendants argued, among other 7 Poy v Allan, 247 Mich 385, 388 ; 225 NW 532 (1929). 8 Kearns v Mich Iron & Coke Co, 340 Mich 577, 581 ; 66 NW2d 230 (1954) (quotation marks omitted), quoting Poy, 247 Mich at 388 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
City of Kalamazoo v. Richland Township
green
2 sentences2025STANDING AND THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST RULE Both this Court and the Court of Appeals have referred to the real party in interest rule as a “ ‘standing doctrine.’ ” Miller v Chapman Contracting, 477 Mich 102, 106 ; 730 NW2d 462 (2007), quoting Kalamazoo v Richland Twp, 221 Mich App 531, 534 ; 562 NW2d 237 (1997). 2025STANDING AND THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST RULE Both this Court and the Court of Appeals have referred to the real party in interest rule as a “ ‘standing doctrine.’ ” Miller v Chapman Contracting, 477 Mich 102, 106 ; 730 NW2d 462 (2007), quoting Kalamazoo v Richland Twp, 221 Mich App 531, 534 ; 562 NW2d 237 (1997). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Miller v. Chapman Contracting
green
2 sentences2025STANDING AND THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST RULE Both this Court and the Court of Appeals have referred to the real party in interest rule as a “ ‘standing doctrine.’ ” Miller v Chapman Contracting, 477 Mich 102, 106 ; 730 NW2d 462 (2007), quoting Kalamazoo v Richland Twp, 221 Mich App 531, 534 ; 562 NW2d 237 (1997). 2025STANDING AND THE REAL PARTY IN INTEREST RULE Both this Court and the Court of Appeals have referred to the real party in interest rule as a “ ‘standing doctrine.’ ” Miller v Chapman Contracting, 477 Mich 102, 106 ; 730 NW2d 462 (2007), quoting Kalamazoo v Richland Twp, 221 Mich App 531, 534 ; 562 NW2d 237 (1997). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Wold Architects and Engineers v. Strat
green
2 sentences2025Though the Court also made various statements about the real party in interest rule, such as describing it as a “standing doctrine,” see id. at 106-107 , these comments were neither “necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand” and thus were dicta, Wold Architects & Engineers v Strat, 474 Mich 223 , 232 n 3; 713 NW2d 750 (2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 17 349, 355; 792 NW2d 686 (2010) (LSEA). 2025Though the Court also made various statements about the real party in interest rule, such as describing it as a “standing doctrine,” see id. at 106-107 , these comments were neither “necessarily involved nor essential to determination of the case in hand” and thus were dicta, Wold Architects & Engineers v Strat, 474 Mich 223 , 232 n 3; 713 NW2d 750 (2006) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 17 349, 355; 792 NW2d 686 (2010) (LSEA). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
In re Beatrice Rottenberg Living Trust
green
2 sentences2023The real party in interest rule “ ‘requir[es] that the claim be prosecuted by the party who by the substantive law in question owns the claim’ that is asserted in the complaint.” Estate of Maki v Coen, 318 Mich App 532 , 539; 899 NW2d 111 (2017), quoting In re Beatrice Rottenberg Trust, 300 Mich App 339, 356 ; 833 NW2d 384 (2013). 2023The real party in interest rule “ ‘requir[es] that the claim be prosecuted by the party who by the substantive law in question owns the claim’ that is asserted in the complaint.” Estate of Maki v Coen, 318 Mich App 532 , 539; 899 NW2d 111 (2017), quoting In re Beatrice Rottenberg Trust, 300 Mich App 339, 356 ; 833 NW2d 384 (2013). | 2 | 2016–2023 |
Maiden v. Rozwood
green
2 sentences2026Id. at ___; slip op at 17. 2026Id. at ___; slip op at 18. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
William Miller v. Allstate Ins Co
green
1 sentence2023Statutory standing is a jurisdictional principle, while “the real-party-in-interest rule is essentially a prudential limitation on a litigant’s ability to raise the legal rights of another.” Id. “[I]f a party lacks statutory standing, then the court generally lacks jurisdiction to entertain the proceeding or reach the merits.” Id., citing Miller v Allstate Ins Co, 481 Mich 601, 608-612 ; 751 NW2d 463 (2008); see also Grady v Wambach, 339 Mich App 325 , 330; 984 NW2d 463 (2021). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Rite-Way Refuse Disposal, Inc v. Vanderploeg
green
2 sentences1995In Rite-Way Refuse Disposal, Inc v Vanderploeg, 161 Mich App 274, 278 ; 409 NW2d 804 (1987), this Court, quoting from 2 Martin, Dean & Webster, Michigan Court Rules Practice, p 6, stated: "The purpose of the [real party in interest] rule is to protect the defendant by requiring that the claim be prosecuted by the party who by the substantive law in question owns the claim asserted against the defendant.” "The real party in interest rule is concerned only with the power of the plaintiff before the court to bring suit upon the claim stated. 1995In Rite-Way Refuse Disposal, Inc v Vanderploeg, 161 Mich App 274, 278 ; 409 NW2d 804 (1987), this Court, quoting from 2 Martin, Dean & Webster, Michigan Court Rules Practice, p 6, stated: "The purpose of the [real party in interest] rule is to protect the defendant by requiring that the claim be prosecuted by the party who by the substantive law in question owns the claim asserted against the defendant.” "The real party in interest rule is concerned only with the power of the plaintiff before the court to bring suit upon the claim stated. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
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.