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 2005–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
McDougall v. Schanzgreen2 sentences2025“Therefore, if a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration… the court rule should yield.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024We held that there was a distinction between substantive law and matters of practice and procedure and that “ ‘[i]f a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration . . . the [court] rule should yield.’ ” Id. at 30-31 , quoting Joiner & Miller, Rules of Practice and Procedure: A Study of Judicial Rule Making, 55 Mich L R 623, 635 (1957) (alterations in original). | 4 | 10 |
People v. Cornellgreen2 sentences2006See Cornell, supra at 367 . “ ‘If a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration. .. the [court] rule should yield.’ ” McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 597 NW2d 148 (1999) (citation omitted). 2006See Cornell, supra at 367 , 646 N.W.2d 127 . "`If a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration . . . the [court] rule should yield.'" McDougall v. Schanz, 461 Mich. 15, 30-31 , 597 N.W.2d 148 (1999) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Estate of Gordon
green
2 sentences2016Additionally, “the Supreme Court’s rule-making power is constitutionally supreme in matters of practice and procedure only when the conflicting statute embodying putative procedural rules reflects no legislative policy consideration other than judicial dispatch of litigation.” In re Gordon Estate, 222 Mich App 148, 153 ; 564 NW2d 497 (1997). 2016Additionally, “the Supreme Court’s rule-making power is constitutionally supreme in matters of practice and procedure only when the conflicting statute embodying putative procedural rules reflects no legislative policy consideration other than judicial dispatch of litigation.” In re Gordon Estate, 222 Mich App 148, 153 ; 564 NW2d 497 (1997). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Syrkowski v. Appleyard
green
2 sentences2025Our Supreme Court has stated that the Paternity Act “was created as a procedural vehicle for determining the paternity of children ‘born out of wedlock,’ and enforcing the resulting support obligation.” Black v Cook, 346 Mich App 121 , 142; 11 NW3d 563 (2023), quoting Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367, 375 ; 362 NW2d 211 (1985). 2025Our Supreme Court has stated that the Paternity Act “was created as a procedural vehicle for determining the paternity of children ‘born out of wedlock,’ and enforcing the resulting support obligation.” Black v Cook, 346 Mich App 121 , 142; 11 NW3d 563 (2023), quoting Syrkowski v Appleyard, 420 Mich 367, 375 ; 362 NW2d 211 (1985). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Huff
green
2 sentences2024And while this line-drawing must be performed “on a case-by-case basis,” id., “if a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having 5 as its basis something other than court administration[,] the court rule should yield,” id. at 30-31 (cleaned up). 3 As for our superintending-control authority, Const 1963, art 6, § 4 states, in relevant part, that except for certain limitations not at issue here, “the supreme court shall have general superintending control over all courts . . . .” We have previously explained, “The superintending control conferred 2024And while this line-drawing must be performed “on a case-by-case basis,” id., “if a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having 5 as its basis something other than court administration[,] the court rule should yield,” id. at 30-31 (cleaned up). 3 As for our superintending-control authority, Const 1963, art 6, § 4 states, in relevant part, that except for certain limitations not at issue here, “the supreme court shall have general superintending control over all courts . . . .” We have previously explained, “The superintending control conferred | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Gladych v. New Family Homes, Inc
green
2 sentences2024STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ARE SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO OUR AUTHORITY OVER PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE We have previously held that “[s]tatutes regarding periods of limitation are substantive in nature.” Gladych v New Family Homes, Inc, 468 Mich 594, 600 ; 664 NW2d 705 (2003). 2024STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS ARE SUBSTANTIVE IN NATURE AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO OUR AUTHORITY OVER PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE We have previously held that “[s]tatutes regarding periods of limitation are substantive in nature.” Gladych v New Family Homes, Inc, 468 Mich 594, 600 ; 664 NW2d 705 (2003). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
People v. Watkins; People v. Pullen
green
1 sentence2013Examples are rules of evidence designed to let the jury have evidence free from the risks of irrelevancy, confusion and fraud. [Watkins, 491 Mich at 474-475 , quot ing McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 597 NW2d 148 (1999) (quotation marks omitted) (first and third alterations in original).] Contrary to the majority’s conclusion, MCL 257.626(5) is obviously not a matter of practice and procedure; rather, § 626(5) is absolutely within the substantive power of the Legislature. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Muci v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
green
2 sentences2008Mu ci v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 478 Mich 178, 191 ; 732 NW2d 88 (2007). “ ‘ “If a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration... the [court] rule should yield.” ’ ” People v Williams, 475 Mich 245, 260 ; 716 NW2d 208 (2006), quoting McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 597 NW2d 148 (1999), quoting Joiner & Miller, Rules of practice and procedure: A study of judicial rule making, 55 Mich L R 623, 635 (1957). 2008Mu ci v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 478 Mich 178, 191 ; 732 NW2d 88 (2007). “ ‘ “If a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration... the [court] rule should yield.” ’ ” People v Williams, 475 Mich 245, 260 ; 716 NW2d 208 (2006), quoting McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 597 NW2d 148 (1999), quoting Joiner & Miller, Rules of practice and procedure: A study of judicial rule making, 55 Mich L R 623, 635 (1957). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Williams
green
2 sentences2008Mu ci v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 478 Mich 178, 191 ; 732 NW2d 88 (2007). “ ‘ “If a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration... the [court] rule should yield.” ’ ” People v Williams, 475 Mich 245, 260 ; 716 NW2d 208 (2006), quoting McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 597 NW2d 148 (1999), quoting Joiner & Miller, Rules of practice and procedure: A study of judicial rule making, 55 Mich L R 623, 635 (1957). 2008Mu ci v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 478 Mich 178, 191 ; 732 NW2d 88 (2007). “ ‘ “If a particular court rule contravenes a legislatively declared principle of public policy, having as its basis something other than court administration... the [court] rule should yield.” ’ ” People v Williams, 475 Mich 245, 260 ; 716 NW2d 208 (2006), quoting McDougall v Schanz, 461 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 597 NW2d 148 (1999), quoting Joiner & Miller, Rules of practice and procedure: A study of judicial rule making, 55 Mich L R 623, 635 (1957). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.