10 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1952–2025 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rory v. Continental Insurancegreen2 sentences2021See Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 469 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005). 2021See Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 469 ; 703 NW2d 23 (2005). | 3 | 3 |
People v. Hendersongreen1 sentence2023See also People v Henderson, 282 Mich App 307, 328-329 ; 765 NW2d 619 (2009) (interpreting a prior, but substantially similar, version of MCL 750.50(2) and noting that last antecedent to the clause “having the charge or custody of an animal” applies only to “person” and not “possessor,” since “the resulting clause would be redundant because a ‘possessor’ in this instance is a person who has possession of an animal.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Scheibner v. Scheibner
green
2 sentences1952We are cited to Scheibner v. Scheibner, supra , and other cases indicative of a rule that under the presumption the burden of proof on the subject of undue influence shifts from plaintiffs to defendant. 1952We are cited to Scheibner v. Scheibner, supra, and other cases indicative of a rule that under the presumption the burden of proof on the subject of undue influence shifts from plaintiffs to defendant. | 2 | 1952–1952 |
People v. Lockridge
green
2 sentences2025At a minimum, counsel argued, defendant was entitled to the restitution hearing that the previous trial court judge had orally granted but was 2 People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). -2- never held. 2025At a minimum, counsel argued, defendant was entitled to the restitution hearing that the previous trial court judge had orally granted but was 2 People v Lockridge, 498 Mich 358 ; 870 NW2d 502 (2015). -2- never held. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Flick; People v. Lazarus
green
1 sentence2023Dominion or control “need not be exclusive.” Flick, 487 Mich at 14 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Theriault v. AL BOURDEAU INSURANCE SERVICE, INC.
green
1 sentence2023See also People v Henderson, 282 Mich App 307, 328-329 ; 765 NW2d 619 (2009) (interpreting a prior, but substantially similar, version of MCL 750.50(2) and noting that last antecedent to the clause “having the charge or custody of an animal” applies only to “person” and not “possessor,” since “the resulting clause would be redundant because a ‘possessor’ in this instance is a person who has possession of an animal.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Frost v. Cockerham
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Chastain v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2019Chastain v Gen Motors Corp, 254 Mich App 576, 586 ; 657 NW2d 804 (2002). 2019Chastain v Gen Motors Corp, 254 Mich App 576, 586 ; 657 NW2d 804 (2002). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Waclawski
green
1 sentence2016See MCR 6.112(G); Waclawski, 286 Mich App at 706-707 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.