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.
10 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Elias Bros. Restaurants, Inc. v. Treasury Departmentgreen2 sentences2014Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision that held that the use tax can never be levied on property if the purchase of that property was merely subject to sales tax. 3 MCL 205.94(1)(a). 4 MCL 205.51 et seq. 5 “[T]here is levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, by which ownership of tangible personal property is transferred for consideration, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in that business equal to 6% of the gross proceeds of the business, plus the penalty and interest if applicable as 2014Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the Court of Appeals’ decision that held that the use tax can never be levied on property if the purchase of that property was merely subject to sales tax. 3 MCL 205.94(1)(a). 4 MCL 205.51 et seq. 5 “[T]here is levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, by which ownership of tangible personal property is transferred for consideration, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in that business equal to 6% of the gross proceeds of the business, plus the penalty and interest if applicable as | 1 | 1 |
May v. Toppinggreen2 sentences1959This resolution proposed that section 10 (of article 10) be amended by the people in sueh way as to authorize borrowing by the State of a sum not to exceed $100,-000,000 and, relevantly here, to authorize the legislature to “levy a sales tax of 1% in addition to and upon the same base as the sales tax authorized by section 23 of this article 10, which additional tax shall expire not later than June 30, 1961.” Finally, by house joint resolution “Y”, introduced May 14, 1959 , it was proposed by Representative O’Brien and another that said section 23 be submitted to the people for outright repeal 1959This resolution proposed that section 10 (of article 10) be amended by the people in such way as to authorize borrowing by the State of a sum not to exceed $100,000,000 and, relevantly here, to authorize the legislature to "levy a sales tax of 1% in addition to and upon the same base as the sales tax authorized by section 23 of this article 10, which additional tax shall expire not later than June 30, 1961." Finally, by house joint resolution "Y", introduced May 14, 1959 , it was proposed by Representative O'Brien and another that said section 23 be submitted to the people for outright repeal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mayor of Lansing v. Public Service Commission
green
2 sentences2020No further judicial construction is required or permitted.’ ”) (citation omitted). 17 See Mayor of Lansing v Pub Serv Comm, 470 Mich 154, 164-166 ; 680 NW2d 840 (2004) (noting that ambiguity can occur if a statutory provision “ ‘irreconcilably conflict[s]’ with another provision” but that “a finding of ambiguity is to be reached only after ‘all other conventional means of [] interpretation’ have been applied and found wanting”) (citations omitted; alterations in original). 18 MCL 205.52(1) (providing, in pertinent part, that “there is levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons e 2020No further judicial construction is required or permitted.’ ”) (citation omitted). 17 See Mayor of Lansing v Pub Serv Comm, 470 Mich 154, 164-166 ; 680 NW2d 840 (2004) (noting that ambiguity can occur if a statutory provision “ ‘irreconcilably conflict[s]’ with another provision” but that “a finding of ambiguity is to be reached only after ‘all other conventional means of [] interpretation’ have been applied and found wanting”) (citations omitted; alterations in original). 18 MCL 205.52(1) (providing, in pertinent part, that “there is levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons e | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Andrie Inc v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2026MCL 205.51(1)(b) defines “sale at retail” as “a sale, lease, or rental of tangible personal property for any purpose other than for resale, sublease, or subrent.” “[T]he legal responsibility for the sales tax falls on the retail seller . . . .” Andrie Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 496 Mich 161, 169 ; 853 NW2d 310 (2014). 2026MCL 205.51(1)(b) defines “sale at retail” as “a sale, lease, or rental of tangible personal property for any purpose other than for resale, sublease, or subrent.” “[T]he legal responsibility for the sales tax falls on the retail seller . . . .” Andrie Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 496 Mich 161, 169 ; 853 NW2d 310 (2014). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
World Book, Inc v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2013World Book, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 459 Mich 403, 407 ; 590 NW2d 293 (1999). 2013World Book, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 459 Mich 403, 407 ; 590 NW2d 293 (1999). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences1985General Motors Corp v Detroit, 141 Mich App 630, 633 ; 368 NW2d 739 (1985), MCI Telecommunications Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 136 Mich App 28, 30 ; 355 NW2d 627 (1984), Const 1963, art 6, § 28. *250 I The General Sales Tax Act, § 2, establishes the basis for the tax as follows: "Except as provided in section 2a, there is hereby levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as defined in section 1, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in that business equal to 4% of the gross proceeds thereof, plus the penalty and interest whe 1985General Motors Corp v Detroit, 141 Mich App 630, 633 ; 368 NW2d 739 (1985), MCI Telecommunications Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 136 Mich App 28, 30 ; 355 NW2d 627 (1984), Const 1963, art 6, § 28. *250 I The General Sales Tax Act, § 2, establishes the basis for the tax as follows: "Except as provided in section 2a, there is hereby levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as defined in section 1, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in that business equal to 4% of the gross proceeds thereof, plus the penalty and interest whe | 1 | 1985–1985 |
General Motors Corp. v. City of Detroit
neutral
2 sentences1985General Motors Corp v Detroit, 141 Mich App 630, 633 ; 368 NW2d 739 (1985), MCI Telecommunications Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 136 Mich App 28, 30 ; 355 NW2d 627 (1984), Const 1963, art 6, § 28. *250 I The General Sales Tax Act, § 2, establishes the basis for the tax as follows: "Except as provided in section 2a, there is hereby levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as defined in section 1, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in that business equal to 4% of the gross proceeds thereof, plus the penalty and interest whe 1985General Motors Corp v Detroit, 141 Mich App 630, 633 ; 368 NW2d 739 (1985), MCI Telecommunications Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 136 Mich App 28, 30 ; 355 NW2d 627 (1984), Const 1963, art 6, § 28. *250 I The General Sales Tax Act, § 2, establishes the basis for the tax as follows: "Except as provided in section 2a, there is hereby levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as defined in section 1, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in that business equal to 4% of the gross proceeds thereof, plus the penalty and interest whe | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Federal Reserve Bank v. Department of Revenue
green
2 sentences1976Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago v Department of Revenue, 339 Mich 587 ; 64 NW2d 639 (1954). 1976Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago v Department of Revenue, 339 Mich 587 ; 64 NW2d 639 (1954). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Swain Lumber Co. v. Newman Development Co.
green
1 sentence1968The State sales tax is a tax upon the seller and not the consumer as is evidenced in section 2 of the sales tax act * which reads in part as follows: “There is hereby levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as hereinbefore defined, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in such business equal to 4% of the gross proceeds thereof, plus the penalty and interest when applicable as hereinafter provided, less deductions allowed in sections 4 and 4a.” In a somewhat similar case, Swain Lumber Co. v. Newman Development Co. (1946) | 1 | 1968–1968 |
James v. Dravo Contracting Co.
green
2 sentences1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). 1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Curry v. United States
green
2 sentences1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). 1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Alabama v. King & Boozer
green
2 sentences1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). 1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Comm'n of Pa.
green
2 sentences1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). 1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). | 1 | 1954–1954 |
Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans
green
2 sentences1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). 1954Defendant, in turn, urges as controlling the following: James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 US 134 ( 58 S Ct 208 , 82 L ed 155, 114 ALR 318 ); Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 US 1 ( 62 S Ct 43 , 86 L ed 3, 140 ALR 615 ); Curry v. United States, 314 US 14 ( 62 S Ct 48 , 86 L ed 9); Penn Dairies, Inc., v. Milk Control Commission, 318 US 261 ( 63 S Ct 617 , 87 L ed 748); Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Evans, 345 US 495 ( 73 S Ct 800 , 97 L ed 1174). | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.