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 1978–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grand Rapids Motor Coach Co. v. Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences1987See Grand Rapids Motor Coach Co v Public Service Commission, 323 Mich 624, 634 ; 36 NW2d 299 (1949). 1987See Grand Rapids Motor Coach Co v Public Service Commission, 323 Mich 624, 634 ; 36 NW2d 299 (1949). | 3 | 3 |
Luidens v. 63rd District Courtgreen2 sentences2024The interest-of-justice exception is “directed at remedying the possibility that parties might make offers of judgment for gamesmanship purposes, rather than as a sincere effort at negotiation.” Lluidens v 63rd Dist Court, 219 Mich App 24, 35 ; 555 NW2d 709 (1996). 2014Viewed in light of this purpose, the “interest of justice” provision is the exception to a general rule, and it should not be applied “ ‘absent unusual circumstances.’ ” Id. at 32 (citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
AFP Specialties, Inc. v. Vereykengreen2 sentences2024Viewed in light of this purpose, the ‘interest of justice’ provision is the exception to a general rule, and it should not be applied absent unusual circumstances.” AFP Specialties, 303 Mich App at 518-519 (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2023In other words, because the interest-of-justice exception is “the exception to a general rule,”1 see AFP Specialties, Inc v Vereyken, 303 Mich App 497, 518 ; 844 NW2d 470 (2014), the trial court in Simcor had never reached the issue of whether the exception applied, because it had preliminarily held that the arbitrator’s award did not satisfy the first necessary element of the general rule—that there be a “verdict” that was more favorable to the offeror than the average offer. | 1 | 2 |
Whirlpool Corp. v. Marshallgreen1 sentence1985If such compensation is awarded as an exception to a general rule that mental distress damages are not recoverable, this Court in formulating the exception could confide full control of the amount to the circuit court on a trial de novo. [11] Ford Motor Co v EEOC, 458 US 219, 232-233 ; 102 S Ct 3057 ; 73 L Ed 2d 721 (1982). [12] See Whirlpool Corp v Marshall, supra at 17, where the United States Supreme Court commented on the impolicy of "giving employees a unilateral authority to walk off the job which they might abuse in order to intimidate or harass their employer." [13] See Young, n 8 supr | 1 | 1 |
People ex rel. Detroit & Howell Railroad v. Township Boardgreen1 sentence1981But there can be no doubt, I think, that this holding was a considerable modification of common law principles.” People ex rel Detroit & Howell R Co v Salem Twp Board, 20 Mich 452, 479 (1870). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Derderian v. Genesys Health Care Systems
green
1 sentence2014“Factors such as the reasonableness of the offeree’s refusal of the offer, the party’s ability to pay, and the fact that the claim was not frivolous ‘are too common’ to constitute the unusual circumstances encompassed by the ‘interest of justice’ exception.” Derderian, 263 Mich App at 391 , quoting Luidens, 219 Mich App at 34-35 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Gudewicz v. Matt’s Catering, Inc
green
2 sentences1996Gudewicz v Matt’s Catering, Inc, 188 Mich App 639, 645 ; 470 NW2d 654 (1991). 1996Gudewicz v Matt’s Catering, Inc, 188 Mich App 639, 645 ; 470 NW2d 654 (1991). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools
green
1 sentence1987Justice Ryan’s reasoning in his dissent in Bush, supra, 738-739 , is applicable to the case at bar: "Although I find the majority approach appealing as a substantive rule of law, I am compelled to dissent because such a construction of the 'building’ exception does not at all square with the manifest intent of the Legislature as expressed in the governmental immunity statute, MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107). * * * "When construing an exception to a general rule, care must be taken not to derogate from the general rule to the extent that its intent and purpose is undermined. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
green
2 sentences1985If such compensation is awarded as an exception to a general rule that mental distress damages are not recoverable, this Court in formulating the exception could confide full control of the amount to the circuit court on a trial de novo. [11] Ford Motor Co v EEOC, 458 US 219, 232-233 ; 102 S Ct 3057 ; 73 L Ed 2d 721 (1982). [12] See Whirlpool Corp v Marshall, supra at 17, where the United States Supreme Court commented on the impolicy of "giving employees a unilateral authority to walk off the job which they might abuse in order to intimidate or harass their employer." [13] See Young, n 8 supr 1985If such compensation is awarded as an exception to a general rule that mental distress damages are not recoverable, this Court in formulating the exception could confide full control of the amount to the circuit court on a trial de novo. [11] Ford Motor Co v EEOC, 458 US 219, 232-233 ; 102 S Ct 3057 ; 73 L Ed 2d 721 (1982). [12] See Whirlpool Corp v Marshall, supra at 17, where the United States Supreme Court commented on the impolicy of "giving employees a unilateral authority to walk off the job which they might abuse in order to intimidate or harass their employer." [13] See Young, n 8 supr | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Higgins v. Monroe Evening News
green
2 sentences1978MCL 409.14; MSA 17.714 is valid.” Higgins v Monroe Evening News, 70 Mich App 407, 418-419 ; 245 NW2d 769 (1976) (dissent). 1978MCL 409.14; MSA 17.714 is valid.” Higgins v Monroe Evening News, 70 Mich App 407, 418-419 ; 245 NW2d 769 (1976) (dissent). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
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.