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 1972–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sinochem International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp.green1 sentence2020Compare Radeljak, 475 Mich at 604 - 605 (defining forum non conveniens as “the discretionary power of court to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if action were brought and tried in another forum” and further stating that “[t]he ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties [and the ends] of justice”) (quotation marks and citations omitted; last alteration in original), with Sinochem, 549 US at 429 (“A federal court has discretion to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens when an alternative | 1 | 1 |
Radeljak v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.green1 sentence2020Compare Radeljak, 475 Mich at 604 - 605 (defining forum non conveniens as “the discretionary power of court to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if action were brought and tried in another forum” and further stating that “[t]he ultimate inquiry is where trial will best serve the convenience of the parties [and the ends] of justice”) (quotation marks and citations omitted; last alteration in original), with Sinochem, 549 US at 429 (“A federal court has discretion to dismiss a case on the ground of forum non conveniens when an alternative | 1 | 1 |
The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.red2 sentences2020See M/S Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co, 407 US 1, 12 ; 92 S Ct 1907 ; 32 L Ed 2d 513 (1972) (“The threshold question is whether that court should have exercised its jurisdiction to do more than give effect to the legitimate expectations of the parties, manifested in their freely negotiated agreement, by specifically enforcing the forum clause.”). -5- Our Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have similarly described the fundamental aims of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. 2020See M/S Bremen v Zapata Off-Shore Co, 407 US 1, 12 ; 92 S Ct 1907 ; 32 L Ed 2d 513 (1972) (“The threshold question is whether that court should have exercised its jurisdiction to do more than give effect to the legitimate expectations of the parties, manifested in their freely negotiated agreement, by specifically enforcing the forum clause.”). -5- Our Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have similarly described the fundamental aims of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. | 1 | 1 |
Valentine v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co.green2 sentences2000As for any claim in contract, no violation of the code or tariff is pleaded.” Id., 30 (emphasis in original). 2000Harbaugh [v Citizens Telephone Co, 190 Mich 421 ; 157 NW 32 (1916)], supra, and Muskegon Agency [Inc v General Telephone Co of Michigan, 340 Mich 472 ; 65 NW2d 748 (1954) and 350 Mich 41 ; 85 NW2d 170 (1957)], supra, have clearly established that the proper forum for a claim sounding in tort is a court of general jurisdiction of this state. [Valentine, supra, 25-26 .] The Court then examined the plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that “[n]o count sets forth acts or conduct of defendant that would constitute negligence, gross negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, or some other tort. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Harbaugh v. Citizens Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2000Harbaugh [v Citizens Telephone Co, 190 Mich 421 ; 157 NW 32 (1916)], supra, and Muskegon Agency [Inc v General Telephone Co of Michigan, 340 Mich 472 ; 65 NW2d 748 (1954) and 350 Mich 41 ; 85 NW2d 170 (1957)], supra, have clearly established that the proper forum for a claim sounding in tort is a court of general jurisdiction of this state. [Valentine, supra, 25-26 .] The Court then examined the plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that “[n]o count sets forth acts or conduct of defendant that would constitute negligence, gross negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, or some other tort. 2000Harbaugh [v Citizens Telephone Co, 190 Mich 421 ; 157 NW 32 (1916)], supra, and Muskegon Agency [Inc v General Telephone Co of Michigan, 340 Mich 472 ; 65 NW2d 748 (1954) and 350 Mich 41 ; 85 NW2d 170 (1957)], supra, have clearly established that the proper forum for a claim sounding in tort is a court of general jurisdiction of this state. [Valentine, supra, 25-26 .] The Court then examined the plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that “[n]o count sets forth acts or conduct of defendant that would constitute negligence, gross negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, or some other tort. | 5 | 1972–2000 |
In Re Powers Estate
green
1 sentence2018Id . at 178, 134 N.W.2d 148 ("The forum in which to test unprofessional conduct of an attorney in this State is adequately supplied in the State Bar grievance procedure. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
green
1 sentence2016Pleasant Grove City, 555 US at 480 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016Id. at ___; 135 S Ct at 2251-2252 ; 192 L Ed 2d at 287-288 . 2016Id. at ___; 135 S Ct at 2251-2252 ; 192 L Ed 2d at 287-288 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Koster v. (American) Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences2006Superseded by statute on other grounds, as explained in American Dredging Co v Miller, 510 US 443 , 449 n 2; 114 S Ct 981 ; 127 L Ed 2d 285 (1994). “[The place] of corporate domicile... might be entitled to little consideration under the doctrine of forum, non conveniens, which resists formalization and looks to the realities that make for doing justice.” Koster v (American) Lumbermens Mut Cas Co, 330 US 518, 528 ; 67 S Ct 828 ; 91 L Ed 1067 (1947). 2006Superseded by statute on other grounds, as explained in American Dredging Co v Miller, 510 US 443 , 449 n 2; 114 S Ct 981 ; 127 L Ed 2d 285 (1994). “[The place] of corporate domicile... might be entitled to little consideration under the doctrine of forum, non conveniens, which resists formalization and looks to the realities that make for doing justice.” Koster v (American) Lumbermens Mut Cas Co, 330 US 518, 528 ; 67 S Ct 828 ; 91 L Ed 1067 (1947). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
American Dredging Co. v. Miller
green
2 sentences2006Superseded by statute on other grounds, as explained in American Dredging Co v Miller, 510 US 443 , 449 n 2; 114 S Ct 981 ; 127 L Ed 2d 285 (1994). “[The place] of corporate domicile... might be entitled to little consideration under the doctrine of forum, non conveniens, which resists formalization and looks to the realities that make for doing justice.” Koster v (American) Lumbermens Mut Cas Co, 330 US 518, 528 ; 67 S Ct 828 ; 91 L Ed 1067 (1947). 2006Superseded by statute on other grounds, as explained in American Dredging Co v Miller, 510 US 443 , 449 n 2; 114 S Ct 981 ; 127 L Ed 2d 285 (1994). “[The place] of corporate domicile... might be entitled to little consideration under the doctrine of forum, non conveniens, which resists formalization and looks to the realities that make for doing justice.” Koster v (American) Lumbermens Mut Cas Co, 330 US 518, 528 ; 67 S Ct 828 ; 91 L Ed 1067 (1947). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Muskegon Agency, Inc. v. General Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2000Harbaugh [v Citizens Telephone Co, 190 Mich 421 ; 157 NW 32 (1916)], supra, and Muskegon Agency [Inc v General Telephone Co of Michigan, 340 Mich 472 ; 65 NW2d 748 (1954) and 350 Mich 41 ; 85 NW2d 170 (1957)], supra, have clearly established that the proper forum for a claim sounding in tort is a court of general jurisdiction of this state. [Valentine, supra, 25-26 .] The Court then examined the plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that “[n]o count sets forth acts or conduct of defendant that would constitute negligence, gross negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, or some other tort. 2000Harbaugh [v Citizens Telephone Co, 190 Mich 421 ; 157 NW 32 (1916)], supra, and Muskegon Agency [Inc v General Telephone Co of Michigan, 340 Mich 472 ; 65 NW2d 748 (1954) and 350 Mich 41 ; 85 NW2d 170 (1957)], supra, have clearly established that the proper forum for a claim sounding in tort is a court of general jurisdiction of this state. [Valentine, supra, 25-26 .] The Court then examined the plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that “[n]o count sets forth acts or conduct of defendant that would constitute negligence, gross negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, or some other tort. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Muskegon Agency, Inc. v. General Telephone Co.
green
2 sentences2000Harbaugh [v Citizens Telephone Co, 190 Mich 421 ; 157 NW 32 (1916)], supra, and Muskegon Agency [Inc v General Telephone Co of Michigan, 340 Mich 472 ; 65 NW2d 748 (1954) and 350 Mich 41 ; 85 NW2d 170 (1957)], supra, have clearly established that the proper forum for a claim sounding in tort is a court of general jurisdiction of this state. [Valentine, supra, 25-26 .] The Court then examined the plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that “[n]o count sets forth acts or conduct of defendant that would constitute negligence, gross negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, or some other tort. 2000Harbaugh [v Citizens Telephone Co, 190 Mich 421 ; 157 NW 32 (1916)], supra, and Muskegon Agency [Inc v General Telephone Co of Michigan, 340 Mich 472 ; 65 NW2d 748 (1954) and 350 Mich 41 ; 85 NW2d 170 (1957)], supra, have clearly established that the proper forum for a claim sounding in tort is a court of general jurisdiction of this state. [Valentine, supra, 25-26 .] The Court then examined the plaintiff’s complaint and concluded that “[n]o count sets forth acts or conduct of defendant that would constitute negligence, gross negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, or some other tort. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ruppel v. Lesner
green
2 sentences1992Any inquiry into the rights of plaintiffs under the Child Custody Act must begin with the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in Ruppel v Lesner, 421 Mich 559, 565-566 ; 364 NW2d 665 (1984), wherein the Court held: We conclude that where a child is living with its parents, and divorce or separate maintenance proceedings have not been instituted, and there has been no finding of parental unfitness in an appropriate proceeding, the circuit court lacks the authority to enter an order giving custody to a third party over the parents’ objection. 1992Any inquiry into the rights of plaintiffs under the Child Custody Act must begin with the Michigan Supreme Court’s opinion in Ruppel v Lesner, 421 Mich 559, 565-566 ; 364 NW2d 665 (1984), wherein the Court held: We conclude that where a child is living with its parents, and divorce or separate maintenance proceedings have not been instituted, and there has been no finding of parental unfitness in an appropriate proceeding, the circuit court lacks the authority to enter an order giving custody to a third party over the parents’ objection. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.