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 2003–2022 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Khourigreen2 sentences2011A rate determined in this way is normally deemed to be reasonable, and is referred to — for convenience — as the prevailing market rate. [Id. at 895 n 11.] In Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 ; 751 NW2d 472 (2008), our Supreme Court considered the method for determining a “reasonable attorney fee” under the case evaluation rule, MCR 2.403(O)(6). 2011A rate determined in this way is normally deemed to be reasonable, and is referred to — for convenience — as the prevailing market rate. [Id. at 895 n 11.] In Smith v Khouri, 481 Mich 519 ; 751 NW2d 472 (2008), our Supreme Court considered the method for determining a “reasonable attorney fee” under the case evaluation rule, MCR 2.403(O)(6). | 1 | 2 |
Peterson v. Fertelgreen1 sentence2021The consent judgment was entered on August 29, 2017. -4- the trial court’s decision is outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Peterson, 283 Mich App at 235 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Anesthesia Associates of Muskegon, PCgreen2 sentences2003This result is consistent with the purpose of the case evaluation rule “to place the burden of litigation costs upon the party who insists upon a trial by rejecting a proposed mediation award.” See Bien v Venticinque, 151 Mich App 229, 232 ; 390 NW2d 702 (1986); see, also, Taylor v Anesthesia Assoc of Muskegon, PC, 179 Mich App 384, 387 ; 445 NW2d 525 (1989). 2003This result is consistent with the purpose of the case evaluation rule “to place the burden of litigation costs upon the party who insists upon a trial by rejecting a proposed mediation award.” See Bien v Venticinque, 151 Mich App 229, 232 ; 390 NW2d 702 (1986); see, also, Taylor v Anesthesia Assoc of Muskegon, PC, 179 Mich App 384, 387 ; 445 NW2d 525 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Magdich & Associates, PC v. Novi Development Associates LLC
green
2 sentences2019“In general, the purpose of the case evaluation rule is to expedite and simplify the final settlement of cases to avoid a trial.” Magdich & Assoc, PC, 305 Mich App 272, 276 ; 851 NW2d 585 (2014), quoting Larson v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 194 Mich App 329, 332 ; 486 NW2d 128 (1992). 2019“In general, the purpose of the case evaluation rule is to expedite and simplify the final settlement of cases to avoid a trial.” Magdich & Assoc, PC, 305 Mich App 272, 276 ; 851 NW2d 585 (2014), quoting Larson v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 194 Mich App 329, 332 ; 486 NW2d 128 (1992). | 4 | 2015–2019 |
Larson v. Auto-Owners Insurance
green
2 sentences2019“In general, the purpose of the case evaluation rule is to expedite and simplify the final settlement of cases to avoid a trial.” Magdich & Assoc, PC, 305 Mich App 272, 276 ; 851 NW2d 585 (2014), quoting Larson v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 194 Mich App 329, 332 ; 486 NW2d 128 (1992). 2019“In general, the purpose of the case evaluation rule is to expedite and simplify the final settlement of cases to avoid a trial.” Magdich & Assoc, PC, 305 Mich App 272, 276 ; 851 NW2d 585 (2014), quoting Larson v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 194 Mich App 329, 332 ; 486 NW2d 128 (1992). | 2 | 2014–2019 |
Wood v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange
green
1 sentence2022Although the relevant statute here has a different purpose than MCR 2.403(O)(6), the Supreme Court’s analysis in Smith demonstrates how a court should determine the reasonableness of requested attorney fees. -7- 588; 321 NW2d 653 (1982), and the factors in MRPC 1.5(a)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Webb v. Holzheuer
neutral
1 sentence2019Webb, 259 Mich App at 392 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bien v. Venticinque
green
2 sentences2003This result is consistent with the purpose of the case evaluation rule “to place the burden of litigation costs upon the party who insists upon a trial by rejecting a proposed mediation award.” See Bien v Venticinque, 151 Mich App 229, 232 ; 390 NW2d 702 (1986); see, also, Taylor v Anesthesia Assoc of Muskegon, PC, 179 Mich App 384, 387 ; 445 NW2d 525 (1989). 2003This result is consistent with the purpose of the case evaluation rule “to place the burden of litigation costs upon the party who insists upon a trial by rejecting a proposed mediation award.” See Bien v Venticinque, 151 Mich App 229, 232 ; 390 NW2d 702 (1986); see, also, Taylor v Anesthesia Assoc of Muskegon, PC, 179 Mich App 384, 387 ; 445 NW2d 525 (1989). | 1 | 2003–2003 |