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 1 courts 1998–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Belvidere Township v. Heinzegreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Belvidere, supra; City of Troy v Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich App 90, 96 ; 572 NW2d 246 (1997). 2001See, e.g., Belvidere, supra; City of Troy v Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich App 90, 96 ; 572 NW2d 246 (1997). | 2 | 2 |
City of Troy v. Papadelisgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Belvidere, supra; City of Troy v Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich App 90, 96 ; 572 NW2d 246 (1997). 2002See, e.g., Belvidere, supra; City of Troy v Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich App 90, 96 ; 572 NW2d 246 (1997). | 1 | 3 |
Village of Peck v. Hoistgreen2 sentences1998See Village of Peck v Hoist, 153 Mich App 787, 791 ; 396 NW2d 536 (1986). 1998See Village of Peck v Hoist, 153 Mich App 787, 791 ; 396 NW2d 536 (1986). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Shelby Charter Township v. Papesh
green
2 sentences2025However, because the trial court held that the RTFA did not apply, it did not make any factual findings or a legal determination regarding the second element of the RTFA defense: whether defendant’s farm operation conformed to “all applicable GAAMPs.” Shelby Charter Twp, 267 Mich App at 105 . 2025However, because the trial court held that the RTFA did not apply, it did not make any factual findings or a legal determination regarding the second element of the RTFA defense: whether defendant’s farm operation conformed to “all applicable GAAMPs.” Shelby Charter Twp, 267 Mich App at 105 . | 4 | 2013–2025 |
Bryan v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
green
2 sentences2023“Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue in a new action arising between the same parties or their privies when the earlier proceedings resulted in a valid final judgment and the issue in question was actually and necessarily determined in that prior proceedings.” Bryan v JP Morgan Chase Bank, 304 Mich App 708, 715 ; 848 NW2d 482 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2023“Collateral estoppel bars relitigation of an issue in a new action arising between the same parties or their privies when the earlier proceedings resulted in a valid final judgment and the issue in question was actually and necessarily determined in that prior proceedings.” Bryan v JP Morgan Chase Bank, 304 Mich App 708, 715 ; 848 NW2d 482 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Lima Twp v. Bateson
green
2 sentences2016This Court previously held that “a party relying on the RTFA as a defense to a nuisance action has the burden to prove that the challenged conduct is protected under the RTFA.” Lima Twp, 302 Mich App at 496 . 2016The RTFA states, in pertinent part: A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture. [MCL 286.473(1).] -7- This Court has held that “the rights afforded a farmer under the RTFA preempt local ordinances such that activities falling within the purview of the act cannot be barred by ordinance.” Lima Twp, 302 Mich App at 493 , citing Travis v Preston (On Rehearing), 249 Mic | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Travis v. Preston
neutral
1 sentence2016The RTFA states, in pertinent part: A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture. [MCL 286.473(1).] -7- This Court has held that “the rights afforded a farmer under the RTFA preempt local ordinances such that activities falling within the purview of the act cannot be barred by ordinance.” Lima Twp, 302 Mich App at 493 , citing Travis v Preston (On Rehearing), 249 Mic | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Travis v. Preston
green
1 sentence2016The RTFA states, in pertinent part: A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture. [MCL 286.473(1).] -7- This Court has held that “the rights afforded a farmer under the RTFA preempt local ordinances such that activities falling within the purview of the act cannot be barred by ordinance.” Lima Twp, 302 Mich App at 493 , citing Travis v Preston (On Rehearing), 249 Mic | 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.