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 1979–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. v. Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2021Our Supreme Court has summarized: Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. [Ins Institute of Mich v Comm’r of the Office of Fin & Ins Serv, 486 Mich 370, 385 ; 785 NW2d 67 (2010), quoting Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 2021Our Supreme Court has summarized: Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. [Ins Institute of Mich v Comm’r of the Office of Fin & Ins Serv, 486 Mich 370, 385 ; 785 NW2d 67 (2010), quoting Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 | 1 | 10 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Luttrell v. Department of Corrections
green
2 sentences2010In Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984), we adopted the test for judicial review of agency rules articulated by the Court of Appeals in Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975): “Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is ne 2010In Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984), we adopted the test for judicial review of agency rules articulated by the Court of Appeals in Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975): “Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is ne | 2 | 2008–2010 |
In Re Complaint of Rovas Against Sbc
green
2 sentences2010In Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984), we adopted the test for judicial review of agency rules articulated by the Court of Appeals in Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975): “Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is ne 2010In Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984), we adopted the test for judicial review of agency rules articulated by the Court of Appeals in Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975): “Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is ne | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Rovas v. SBC Michigan
green
2 sentences2010Comm., 59 Mich. App. 88, 98-99 , 228 N.W.2d 843 (1975): "Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is neither arbitrary nor capricious." An agency's construction of a statute "is entitled to respectful consideration *75 and, if persuasive, should not be overruled without cogent reasons," but "the court 2010In Luttrell v Dep’t of Corrections, 421 Mich 93, 100 ; 365 NW2d 74 (1984), we adopted the test for judicial review of agency rules articulated by the Court of Appeals in Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975): “Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is ne | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Thomas Bros, Inc v. Secretary of State
green
2 sentences1980In Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Public Service Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975), this Court stated the applicable test: "Where an agency is empowered to make rules, *625 courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is neither arbitrary nor capricious.” Accord, Thomas Bros, Inc v Secretary of State, 90 Mich App 179, 186 ; 282 NW2d 273 ( 1980In Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Public Service Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 (1975), this Court stated the applicable test: "Where an agency is empowered to make rules, *625 courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is neither arbitrary nor capricious.” Accord, Thomas Bros, Inc v Secretary of State, 90 Mich App 179, 186 ; 282 NW2d 273 ( | 2 | 1980–1981 |
Ins. Institute v. Com'r, Financial & Ins.
green
2 sentences2021Our Supreme Court has summarized: Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. [Ins Institute of Mich v Comm’r of the Office of Fin & Ins Serv, 486 Mich 370, 385 ; 785 NW2d 67 (2010), quoting Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 2021Our Supreme Court has summarized: Where an agency is empowered to make rules, courts employ a three-fold test to determine the validity of the rules it promulgates: (1) whether the rule is within the matter covered by the enabling statute; (2) if so, whether it complies with the underlying legislative intent; and (3) if it meets the first two requirements, when [sic] it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. [Ins Institute of Mich v Comm’r of the Office of Fin & Ins Serv, 486 Mich 370, 385 ; 785 NW2d 67 (2010), quoting Chesapeake & Ohio R Co v Pub Serv Comm, 59 Mich App 88, 98-99 ; 228 NW2d 843 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.