10 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiczgreen2 sentences2014See Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462 , 473 n 14; 105 S Ct 2174 ; 85 L Ed 2d 528 (1985) (“[B]ecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a variety of legal arrangements by which a litigant may give express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.”) (quotation marks omitted). 2014See Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462 , 473 n 14; 105 S Ct 2174 ; 85 L Ed 2d 528 (1985) (“[B]ecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a variety of legal arrangements by which a litigant may give express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.”) (quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Farquharsongreen2 sentences2015See People v Farquharson, 274 Mich App 268, 279 ; 731 NW2d 797 (2007). -15- 2015See People v Farquharson, 274 Mich App 268, 279 ; 731 NW2d 797 (2007). -15- | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2002Green v Wilson, 455 Mich 342, 347 (opinion by Kelly, J.), 357 (opinion by Weaver, J.); 565 NW2d 813 (1997). 2002Green v Wilson, 455 Mich 342, 347 (opinion by Kelly, J.), 357 (opinion by Weaver, J.); 565 NW2d 813 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
W H Froh, Inc v. Domanski
green
2 sentences2021“A personal jurisdiction analysis is a two-fold inquiry: (1) do the defendant’s acts fall within the applicable long-arm statute, and (2) does the exercise of jurisdiction over the defendant comport with the requirements of due process.” Id. (citation omitted). 2006W H Froh, Inc v Domanski, 252 Mich App 220, 226 ; 651 NW2d 470 (2002). | 2 | 2006–2021 |
People v. Lown
green
2 sentences2018However, personal jurisdiction involves a court’s power over a particular individual, and “a party may stipulate to, waive, or implicitly consent to personal jurisdiction.” Id. “[B]ecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a variety of legal arrangements by which a litigant may give express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 268 n 49 (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original). 2018However, personal jurisdiction involves a court’s power over a particular individual, and “a party may stipulate to, waive, or implicitly consent to personal jurisdiction.” Id. “[B]ecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivable right, there are a variety of legal arrangements by which a litigant may give express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.” Id. at 268 n 49 (quotation marks and citation omitted; alteration in original). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Robert a Hansen Family Trust v. Fgh Industries, LLC
green
2 sentences2014Typically, a challenge to personal jurisdiction must “‘be raised in a party’s first [summary disposition] motion . . . or in the party’s responsive pleading, whichever is filed first, or [it is] waived.’” Robert A Hansen Family Trust v FGH Industries, LLC, 279 Mich App 468 , 477 n 7; 760 NW2d 526 (2008), quoting MCR 2.116(D)(1). 2014Typically, a challenge to personal jurisdiction must “‘be raised in a party’s first [summary disposition] motion . . . or in the party’s responsive pleading, whichever is filed first, or [it is] waived.’” Robert A Hansen Family Trust v FGH Industries, LLC, 279 Mich App 468 , 477 n 7; 760 NW2d 526 (2008), quoting MCR 2.116(D)(1). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2011Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462 , 473 n 14; 105 S Ct 2174 ; 85 L Ed 2d 528 (1985) (“[B]ecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivahle right, there are a variety of legal arrangements by which a litigant may give express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); People v Phillips, 383 Mich 464, 470 ; 175 NW2d 740 (1970) (“[N]o reason appears why an accused could not subject himself to the court’s personal jurisdiction. 2011Burger King Corp v Rudzewicz, 471 US 462 , 473 n 14; 105 S Ct 2174 ; 85 L Ed 2d 528 (1985) (“[B]ecause the personal jurisdiction requirement is a waivahle right, there are a variety of legal arrangements by which a litigant may give express or implied consent to the personal jurisdiction of the court.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted); People v Phillips, 383 Mich 464, 470 ; 175 NW2d 740 (1970) (“[N]o reason appears why an accused could not subject himself to the court’s personal jurisdiction. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washington
green
2 sentences1997However, the personal jurisdiction analysis does not end at this initial stage because this Court must also determine whether sufficient minimum contacts exist under International Shoe Co v Washington, 326 US 310 ; 66 S Ct 154 ; 90 L Ed 95 ; 161 ALR 1057 (1945), and its progeny to sustain the imposition of personal jurisdiction. 1997However, the personal jurisdiction analysis does not end at this initial stage because this Court must also determine whether sufficient minimum contacts exist under International Shoe Co v Washington, 326 US 310 ; 66 S Ct 154 ; 90 L Ed 95 ; 161 ALR 1057 (1945), and its progeny to sustain the imposition of personal jurisdiction. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Starbrite Distributing, Inc. v. Excelda Manufacturing Co.
green
2 sentences1997Starbrite Distributing, Inc v Excelda Mfg Co, 454 Mich 302 ; 562 NW2d 640 (1997). 1997Starbrite Distributing, Inc v Excelda Mfg Co, 454 Mich 302 ; 562 NW2d 640 (1997). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.