11 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Derderian v. Genesys Health Care Systemsgreen2 sentences2023That is, “a grant of fees . . . should be the rule rather than the exception.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2022That is, “a grant of fees . . . should be the rule rather than the exception.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 3 |
Debra K Andreson v. Progressive Marathon Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2024“The purpose of MCR 2.405 is to encourage parties to settle matters prior to trial.” Andreson, 322 Mich App at 94 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] grant of attorney fees under MCR 2.405(D) should be the rule rather than the exception.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024“The purpose of MCR 2.405 is to encourage parties to settle matters prior to trial.” Andreson, 322 Mich App at 94 (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] grant of attorney fees under MCR 2.405(D) should be the rule rather than the exception.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Judicial Attorneys Ass'n v. Stategreen1 sentence2015See Judicial Attorneys Ass’n, 459 Mich at 304 (“Separation of powers does not preclude what has proven to be the rule rather than the exception in the operation of Michigan’s trial courts: cooperation, communication, and accommodation between trial courts and their funding units in their exercise of shared responsibility to the public. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Butzer v. Camelot Hall Convalescent Centre, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017As such, a grant of attorney fees under MCR 2.405(D) “should be the rule rather than the exception.” Butzer v Camelot Hall Convalescent Centre, Inc (After Remand), 201 Mich App 275, 278 ; 505 NW2d 862 (1993). 2017As such, a grant of attorney fees under MCR 2.405(D) “should be the rule rather than the exception.” Butzer v Camelot Hall Convalescent Centre, Inc (After Remand), 201 Mich App 275, 278 ; 505 NW2d 862 (1993). | 5 | 1996–2017 |
Luidens v. 63rd District Court
green
2 sentences2024However, “[t]he court may, in the interest of justice, refuse to award an attorney fee under this rule.” MCR 2.405(D)(3). “[T]his Court has held that, ‘absent unusual circumstances,’ the ‘interest of justice’ does not preclude an award of attorney fees under MCR 2.405.” Luidens v 63rd Dist Ct, 219 Mich App 24, 32 ; 555 NW2d 709 (1996) (citations omitted). 2024However, “[t]he court may, in the interest of justice, refuse to award an attorney fee under this rule.” MCR 2.405(D)(3). “[T]his Court has held that, ‘absent unusual circumstances,’ the ‘interest of justice’ does not preclude an award of attorney fees under MCR 2.405.” Luidens v 63rd Dist Ct, 219 Mich App 24, 32 ; 555 NW2d 709 (1996) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2004–2024 |
Gudewicz v. Matt’s Catering, Inc
green
2 sentences1993Gudewicz, supra at 644-645 ; Stamp v Hagerman, 181 Mich App 332, 338-339 ; 448 NW2d 849 (1989). 1993Gudewicz, supra at 644-645 ; Stamp v Hagerman, 181 Mich App 332, 338-339 ; 448 NW2d 849 (1989). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Stamp v. Hagerman
green
2 sentences1993Gudewicz, supra at 644-645 ; Stamp v Hagerman, 181 Mich App 332, 338-339 ; 448 NW2d 849 (1989). 1993Gudewicz, supra at 644-645 ; Stamp v Hagerman, 181 Mich App 332, 338-339 ; 448 NW2d 849 (1989). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.