principles doctrine in Michigan

2017In Killips v Mannisto, 244 Mich App 256, 260 ; 624 NW2d 224 (2001), this Court set out the principles of the doctrine of acquiescence: The doctrine of acquiescence provides that where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line.

2017In Killips v Mannisto, 244 Mich App 256, 260 ; 624 NW2d 224 (2001), this Court set out the principles of the doctrine of acquiescence: The doctrine of acquiescence provides that where adjoining property owners acquiesce to a boundary line for at least fifteen years, that line becomes the actual boundary line.

2017West Michigan Dock & Market Corp v Lakeland Investments, 210 Mich App 505, 511 ; 534 NW2d 212 (1995); McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641, 644 ; 425 NW2d 203 (1988).

2017West Michigan Dock & Market Corp v Lakeland Investments, 210 Mich App 505, 511 ; 534 NW2d 212 (1995); McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641, 644 ; 425 NW2d 203 (1988).

2017West Michigan Dock & Market Corp v Lakeland Investments, 210 Mich App 505, 511 ; 534 NW2d 212 (1995); McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641, 644 ; 425 NW2d 203 (1988).

2017West Michigan Dock & Market Corp v Lakeland Investments, 210 Mich App 505, 511 ; 534 NW2d 212 (1995); McQueen v Black, 168 Mich App 641, 644 ; 425 NW2d 203 (1988).

2005Most recently, our Michigan Court of Appeals observed the following: This Court in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co v Amerisure Ins Co, 195 Mich App 1, 6 ; 489 NW2d 115 (1992), noted that “Michigan and federal case law provides precedent for the principle that limitation statutes are not entirely rigid, allowing judicial tolling under certain circumstances!.]” In Bryant [v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 432; 684 NW2d 864 (2004)], Justice MARKMAN, writing for the majority, applied the principles of the doctrine of equitable tolling in a medical malpractice action, while not

2005Most recently, our Michigan Court of Appeals observed the following: This Court in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co v Amerisure Ins Co, 195 Mich App 1, 6 ; 489 NW2d 115 (1992), noted that “Michigan and federal case law provides precedent for the principle that limitation statutes are not entirely rigid, allowing judicial tolling under certain circumstances!.]” In Bryant [v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 432; 684 NW2d 864 (2004)], Justice MARKMAN, writing for the majority, applied the principles of the doctrine of equitable tolling in a medical malpractice action, while not

2023The “special relationship” test, if also applied to independent agents, collapses the distinction between independent and captive agents because what must be shown to establish a duty to the insured is the same, i.e., a “special relationship,” regardless of whether they are an agent of the insurer or an agent of the insured.1 Harts is inapplicable in this case, and, as such, the majority’s reliance is incorrect. 1 See United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics website, “What Insurance Sales Agents Do,” accessed July 31, 2023, (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/insurance-sales- a

2023The “special relationship” test, if also applied to independent agents, collapses the distinction between independent and captive agents because what must be shown to establish a duty to the insured is the same, i.e., a “special relationship,” regardless of whether they are an agent of the insurer or an agent of the insured.1 Harts is inapplicable in this case, and, as such, the majority’s reliance is incorrect. 1 See United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics website, “What Insurance Sales Agents Do,” accessed July 31, 2023, (https://www.bls.gov/ooh/sales/insurance-sales- a

2022In Davis v City of Detroit Fin Rev Team, 296 Mich App 568, 613-614 ; 821 NW2d 896 (2012), this Court summarized the applicable principles and the analysis required when considering a claim for injunctive relief: As this Court has recognized, an injunction represents an extraordinary and drastic use of judicial power that should be employed sparingly and only with full conviction of its urgent necessity.

2017See also Potesta v United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co, 202 W Va 308, 314-318; 504 SE2d 135 (1998) (discussing the common law application of the principles of waiver and estoppel in this context and holding that while prejudice on the part of the insured is a requirement in order to assert estoppel it is not a requirement for an insured to assert waiver). -3- Defendant argues in the alternative that it cannot be found to have waived any defenses not specifically stated in its initial denial letter because that letter contained the following general reservation of rights language: By stating t

2006See Douglas, [ supra, ] 372 U.S., at 357-358 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 ; M.L.B. [ v. S.L.J. ], 519 U.S. [102] at 110-113, 117 S.Ct. 555 [ 136 L.Ed.2d 473 ]; cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 23 , 76 S.Ct. 585 , 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment) (ordinarily, "a State need not equalize economic conditions" between criminal defendants of lesser and greater wealth). [ Halbert, supra at 2594 n. 8 (emphasis added).] Under the circumstances of this case, the pronouncements in Halbert and the principles of waiver result in but one conclusion: defendant did not int

2006See Douglas, [ supra, ] 372 U.S., at 357-358 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 ; M.L.B. [ v. S.L.J. ], 519 U.S. [102] at 110-113, 117 S.Ct. 555 [ 136 L.Ed.2d 473 ]; cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 23 , 76 S.Ct. 585 , 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment) (ordinarily, "a State need not equalize economic conditions" between criminal defendants of lesser and greater wealth). [ Halbert, supra at 2594 n. 8 (emphasis added).] Under the circumstances of this case, the pronouncements in Halbert and the principles of waiver result in but one conclusion: defendant did not int

2006See Douglas, [ supra, ] 372 U.S., at 357-358 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 ; M.L.B. [ v. S.L.J. ], 519 U.S. [102] at 110-113, 117 S.Ct. 555 [ 136 L.Ed.2d 473 ]; cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 23 , 76 S.Ct. 585 , 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment) (ordinarily, "a State need not equalize economic conditions" between criminal defendants of lesser and greater wealth). [ Halbert, supra at 2594 n. 8 (emphasis added).] Under the circumstances of this case, the pronouncements in Halbert and the principles of waiver result in but one conclusion: defendant did not int

2006See Douglas, [ supra, ] 372 U.S., at 357-358 , 83 S.Ct. 814 , 9 L.Ed.2d 811 ; M.L.B. [ v. S.L.J. ], 519 U.S. [102] at 110-113, 117 S.Ct. 555 [ 136 L.Ed.2d 473 ]; cf. Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 23 , 76 S.Ct. 585 , 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment) (ordinarily, "a State need not equalize economic conditions" between criminal defendants of lesser and greater wealth). [ Halbert, supra at 2594 n. 8 (emphasis added).] Under the circumstances of this case, the pronouncements in Halbert and the principles of waiver result in but one conclusion: defendant did not int

2006People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).

2006People v Carter, 462 Mich 206, 215 ; 612 NW2d 144 (2000).

2006Ed. 891 (1956) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment) (ordinarily, “a State need not equalize economic conditions” between criminal defendants of lesser and greater wealth). [ Halbert, supra at 2594 n 8 (emphasis added).] Under the circumstances of this case, the pronouncements in Halbert and the principles of waiver result in but one conclusion: defendant did not intentionally relinquish a known right.

2005Although equitable tolling must be sparingly applied, Irwin, supra at 96 , equitable remedies are, nonetheless, entirely within the sanctioned parameters of the judiciary’s powers.

2005Most recently, our Michigan Court of Appeals observed the following: This Court in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co v Amerisure Ins Co, 195 Mich App 1, 6 ; 489 NW2d 115 (1992), noted that “Michigan and federal case law provides precedent for the principle that limitation statutes are not entirely rigid, allowing judicial tolling under certain circumstances!.]” In Bryant [v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 432; 684 NW2d 864 (2004)], Justice MARKMAN, writing for the majority, applied the principles of the doctrine of equitable tolling in a medical malpractice action, while not

2005Most recently, our Michigan Court of Appeals observed the following: This Court in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co v Amerisure Ins Co, 195 Mich App 1, 6 ; 489 NW2d 115 (1992), noted that “Michigan and federal case law provides precedent for the principle that limitation statutes are not entirely rigid, allowing judicial tolling under certain circumstances!.]” In Bryant [v Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr, Inc, 471 Mich 411, 432; 684 NW2d 864 (2004)], Justice MARKMAN, writing for the majority, applied the principles of the doctrine of equitable tolling in a medical malpractice action, while not

1998This holding relies upon a misapplication of the principles of the doctrine of mitigation discussed above. *260 The Court of Appeals opined that "even the trial court acknowledged that plaintiff basically stopped looking for work," [10] id., observing the trial court's finding that once plaintiff accepted the landscaping job, he had no obligation to look for "like" employment.

1983In Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41-42 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971), the Supreme Court clarified the doctrine of res judicata as it relates to the separate principles of bar-merger and collateral estoppel.

1983In Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41-42 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971), the Supreme Court clarified the doctrine of res judicata as it relates to the separate principles of bar-merger and collateral estoppel.