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 1966–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
Franklin Mining Co. v. Harrisgreen2 sentences1994See, e.g., Franklin Mining Co v Harris, 24 Mich 115, 117 (1871); In re Forfeiture of Certain Personal Property, 441 Mich 77, 84 ; 490 NW2d 322 (1992). 1994See, e.g., Franklin Mining Co v Harris, 24 Mich 115, 117 (1871); In re Forfeiture of Certain Personal Property, 441 Mich 77, 84 ; 490 NW2d 322 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
McKine v. Sydorgreen2 sentences1974Thus, in the instant case we must view the instructions as a whole with this principle in mind.” (Emphasis in original.) McKine v Sydor, 387 Mich 82, 86 ; 194 NW2d 841, 843 (1972). 1974Thus, in the instant case we must view the instructions as a whole with this principle in mind.” (Emphasis in original.) McKine v Sydor, 387 Mich 82, 86 ; 194 NW2d 841, 843 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
Parks v. Starksgreen1 sentence1972Those instructions relating to and mentioning proximate cause do not incorporate plaintiffs’ requested instruction No. 10, either expressly or implicitly. 3 *88 The trial court’s first definition of proximate cause appears to preclude plaintiffs’ theory of the case and fails to accurately state the law: “[Pjroximate cause is defined to be the direct, immediate, nearest, next in order.” (Emphasis added.) In Par\s v Starks, 342 Mich 443, 448 (1955), we quoted with approval from 38 Am Jur, Negligence, §55, p 703: “ ‘The proximate cause of an injury is not necessarily the immediate cause; not nece | 1 | 1 |
People v. McMurchygreen1 sentence1966See People v. McMurchy (1930), 249 Mich 147, 185 . ' Last,- this Court is moved by the time-honored principle that statutes which ate penal in nature *623 should, he construed strictly in favor of the defendant. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Adamowskigreen1 sentence1966See People v. Adamowski (1954), 340 Mich 422, 429 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Peterman v. Department of Natural Resources
green
2 sentences2025Our Supreme Court has consistently followed “the time-honored rule that, absent unusual circumstances,” issues not presented in the trial court “may not be raised on appeal.” Peterman v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 183 ; 521 NW2d 499 (1994). 2025Our Supreme Court has consistently followed “the time-honored rule that, absent unusual circumstances,” issues not presented in the trial court “may not be raised on appeal.” Peterman v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 446 Mich 177, 183 ; 521 NW2d 499 (1994). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Goecke
green
2 sentences2017"In addition, because the standard of review is abuse of discretion, the defendant is protected by the time-honored principle that the circuit court may not substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate." Goecke , 457 Mich. at 462 , 579 N.W.2d 868 . 2017"In addition, because the standard of review is abuse of discretion, the defendant is protected by the time-honored principle that the circuit court may not substitute its judgment for that of the magistrate." Goecke , 457 Mich. at 462 , 579 N.W.2d 868 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Heurtebise v. Reliable Business Computers, Inc
green
2 sentences2005Beginning in 1890 with Ferguson v. Gies, [4] Michigan has consistently recognized that "whenever a particular equal protection right is recognized, whether by constitution, statute, or common law, then fused to that right is the right to pursue judicial relief." Heurtebise v. Reliable Business Computers, Inc., 452 Mich. 405, 422-423 , 550 N.W.2d 243 (1996) (opinion of Cavanagh, J.) In Bolden v. Grand Rapids Operating Corp, [5] we articulated the already longstanding rule that "`where a statute requires an act to be done or abstained from by one person for the benefit of another, an action lies 2005Beginning in 1890 with Ferguson v. Gies, [4] Michigan has consistently recognized that "whenever a particular equal protection right is recognized, whether by constitution, statute, or common law, then fused to that right is the right to pursue judicial relief." Heurtebise v. Reliable Business Computers, Inc., 452 Mich. 405, 422-423 , 550 N.W.2d 243 (1996) (opinion of Cavanagh, J.) In Bolden v. Grand Rapids Operating Corp, [5] we articulated the already longstanding rule that "`where a statute requires an act to be done or abstained from by one person for the benefit of another, an action lies | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Heinz v. Chicago Road Investment Co.
green
2 sentences2004Heinz v Chicago Rd Investment Co, 216 Mich App 289, 298 ; 549 NW2d 47 (1996). 2004Heinz v Chicago Rd Investment Co, 216 Mich App 289, 298 ; 549 NW2d 47 (1996). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
In Re Forfeiture of Certain Personal Property
neutral
2 sentences1994See, e.g., Franklin Mining Co v Harris, 24 Mich 115, 117 (1871); In re Forfeiture of Certain Personal Property, 441 Mich 77, 84 ; 490 NW2d 322 (1992). 1994See, e.g., Franklin Mining Co v Harris, 24 Mich 115, 117 (1871); In re Forfeiture of Certain Personal Property, 441 Mich 77, 84 ; 490 NW2d 322 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Grand Rapids Independent Publishing Co. v. City of Grand Rapids
neutral
2 sentences1976Grand Rapids Independent Publishing Co v Grand Rapids, 335 Mich 620, 631 ; 56 NW2d 403 (1953). 1976Grand Rapids Independent Publishing Co v Grand Rapids, 335 Mich 620, 631 ; 56 NW2d 403 (1953). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Arsenault v. Arsenault
green
1 sentence1968Making obeisance to the time-honored rule that an appellate court will hear chancery matters de novo, the court must also honor its own rule laid down in Arsenault v. Arsenault (1966), 5 Mich App 476 , 479: “The advantage of the trial court in being able to observe these parents during the trial, and to hear their testimony is peculiarly persuasive in the area of custody. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Chubb v. Chubb
green
1 sentence1968It is such that this Court is not prepared to say the trial court abused its discretion.” In Arsenault , reference was made to Chubb v. Chubb (1941), 297 Mich 501, 506 , where it was well stated as follows: “While we are not restricted by the findings of the circuit court, a divorce ease on appeal being heard ele novo, especial consideration is given to such findings, so largely based upon the credibility of the witnesses, and the reviewing court ought not to reverse the determination of the trial court in such a caso, unless convinced that it must have reached a different conclusion had it oc | 1 | 1968–1968 |
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.