9 California opinions name it 3 courts 1955–2021 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kowalski v. Tesmergreen2 sentences2009(Id. at p. 613.) To obtain leave to appeal, defendants needed to “ ‘submit five copies of the application [for leave to appeal] “stating the date and nature of the judgment or order appealed from; concisely reciting the appellant’s allegations of error and the relief sought; [and] setting forth a concise argument... in support of the appellant’s position on each issue.” ’ ” (Halbert, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 622 , quoting Kowalski v. Tesmer (2004) 543 U.S. 125, 141 [ 160 L.Ed.2d 519 , 125 S.Ct. 564 ], first bracketed insertion added.) The Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed these pro se applicatio 2009(Id. at p. 613.) To obtain leave to appeal, defendants needed to “ ‘submit five copies of the application [for leave to appeal] “stating the date and nature of the judgment or order appealed from; concisely reciting the appellant’s allegations of error and the relief sought; [and] setting forth a concise argument... in support of the appellant’s position on each issue.” ’ ” (Halbert, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 622 , quoting Kowalski v. Tesmer (2004) 543 U.S. 125, 141 [ 160 L.Ed.2d 519 , 125 S.Ct. 564 ], first bracketed insertion added.) The Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed these pro se applicatio | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bakergreen1 sentence1998(State v. Baker (Utah 1983) 671 P.2d 152,154-159 [under Utah statute, defendant may request instructions on lesser offense as necessarily included in charged offense if the elements of the two offenses overlap to some degree and the trial evidence adduced for the greater offense includes proof of some or all the overlapping elements].) Since Geiger was decided, courts in at least two additional states have concluded that the technical niceties of necessary inclusion should not limit the defendant’s right to request instructions on lesser offenses shown by the evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewiczgreen2 sentences1996(See International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 319 [90 L.Ed. at pp. 103-104]; see also Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, 472 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540-541 ]; Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414, fn. 9 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 411 ].) In International Shoe , for example, the court found the defendant’s sales activities within the state were such as to subject it to the forum’s jurisdiction, without requiring proof that the sales activities caused the events underlying the claim within the state (a claim for unemployment insurance contribution for the sales representatives). 9 (International Shoe, sup 1996(See International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 319 [90 L.Ed. at pp. 103-104]; see also Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, 472 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540-541 ]; Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414, fn. 9 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 411 ].) In International Shoe , for example, the court found the defendant’s sales activities within the state were such as to subject it to the forum’s jurisdiction, without requiring proof that the sales activities caused the events underlying the claim within the state (a claim for unemployment insurance contribution for the sales representatives). 9 (International Shoe, sup | 1 | 1 |
International Shoe Co. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1996(See International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 319 [90 L.Ed. at pp. 103-104]; see also Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, 472 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540-541 ]; Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414, fn. 9 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 411 ].) In International Shoe , for example, the court found the defendant’s sales activities within the state were such as to subject it to the forum’s jurisdiction, without requiring proof that the sales activities caused the events underlying the claim within the state (a claim for unemployment insurance contribution for the sales representatives). 9 (International Shoe, sup 1996(See International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 319 [90 L.Ed. at pp. 103-104]; see also Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, 472 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540-541 ]; Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414, fn. 9 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 411 ].) In International Shoe , for example, the court found the defendant’s sales activities within the state were such as to subject it to the forum’s jurisdiction, without requiring proof that the sales activities caused the events underlying the claim within the state (a claim for unemployment insurance contribution for the sales representatives). 9 (International Shoe, sup | 1 | 1 |
Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hallgreen2 sentences1996(See International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 319 [90 L.Ed. at pp. 103-104]; see also Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, 472 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540-541 ]; Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414, fn. 9 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 411 ].) In International Shoe , for example, the court found the defendant’s sales activities within the state were such as to subject it to the forum’s jurisdiction, without requiring proof that the sales activities caused the events underlying the claim within the state (a claim for unemployment insurance contribution for the sales representatives). 9 (International Shoe, sup 1996(See International Shoe, supra, 326 U.S. at p. 319 [90 L.Ed. at pp. 103-104]; see also Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462, 472 [ 85 L.Ed.2d 528, 540-541 ]; Helicopteros, supra, 466 U.S. at p. 414, fn. 9 [ 80 L.Ed.2d at p. 411 ].) In International Shoe , for example, the court found the defendant’s sales activities within the state were such as to subject it to the forum’s jurisdiction, without requiring proof that the sales activities caused the events underlying the claim within the state (a claim for unemployment insurance contribution for the sales representatives). 9 (International Shoe, sup | 1 | 1 |
In Re Guilty Plea Casesgreen2 sentences1979In re Guilty Plea Cases (1975) 395 Mich. 96 [ 235 N.W.2d 132, 140-143 (20)], the court noted that pursuant to a Michigan rule of court, defendants entering a guilty plea must be advised of several rights, including the right to question and confront witnesses and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor. 1979In re Guilty Plea Cases (1975) 395 Mich. 96 [ 235 N.W.2d 132, 140-143 (20)], the court noted that pursuant to a Michigan rule of court, defendants entering a guilty plea must be advised of several rights, including the right to question and confront witnesses and to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021In that case, our Supreme Court explained that under California law, a plaintiff “may meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendant’s product was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff’s or decedent’s risk of developing cancer.” (Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 982 , italics added.) The language in the trial court’s instruction, then, was lifted directly from the Rutherford case and expressly instructed the 16 jury to consider the question using the California standard, whi 2021In that case, our Supreme Court explained that under California law, a plaintiff “may meet the burden of proving that exposure to defendant’s product was a substantial factor causing the illness by showing that in reasonable medical probability it was a substantial factor contributing to the plaintiff’s or decedent’s risk of developing cancer.” (Rutherford, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p. 982 , italics added.) The language in the trial court’s instruction, then, was lifted directly from the Rutherford case and expressly instructed the 16 jury to consider the question using the California standard, whi | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Inselberg v. Inselberg
green
1 sentence2014We sympathize with plaintiff but cannot resolve a constitutional issue based upon sympathy for a litigant.” (Id. at p. 682.) Similarly, in Inselberg v. Inselberg (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 484 , telephone calls between Michigan defendants and the plaintiff’s daughter in California, that could have played some role in inducing the daughter to leave her father and return to the defendants in Michigan, were held insufficient to support jurisdiction over defendants in California, even where the defendants were alleged to have furnished the cost of transportation to the daughter to help her to leave. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Hall v. LaRonde
green
1 sentence2014(Id. at pp. 489-490.) Defendants argue that minimum contacts may be created by the non-resident’s use of e-mail or telephone, citing Hall v. LaRonde (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1342 (Hall). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Douglas v. California
green
2 sentences2009Any real chance he may have had of showing that his appeal has hidden merit is deprived him when the court decides on an ex parte examination of the record that the assistance of counsel is not required.” (Douglas, supra, 372 U.S. at p. 356 .) Though the leave requirement in Halbert bears fleeting resemblance to California’s present certificate of probable cause requirement, we conclude that the Michigan rule’s infirmities do not plague this state’s postplea procedures. 2009Any real chance he may have had of showing that his appeal has hidden merit is deprived him when the court decides on an ex parte examination of the record that the assistance of counsel is not required.” (Douglas, supra, 372 U.S. at p. 356 .) Though the leave requirement in Halbert bears fleeting resemblance to California’s present certificate of probable cause requirement, we conclude that the Michigan rule’s infirmities do not plague this state’s postplea procedures. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Halbert v. Michigan
green
2 sentences2009Thus, the Michigan Court of Appeals required “the defendant to provide information such as ‘charge code(s), MCL citation/PACC Code,’ state the issues and facts relevant to the appeal, and ‘ “state the law that supports your position and explain how the law applies to the facts of your case.” ’ ” (Halbert, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 622 , quoting Michigan’s Application for Leave to Appeal After Sentencing on Plea of Guilty or Nolo Contendere.) In essence, the Michigan rule required abbreviated appeals from pro se defendants before the court would appoint appellate counsel for a full-fledged appeal o 2009Thus, the Michigan Court of Appeals required “the defendant to provide information such as ‘charge code(s), MCL citation/PACC Code,’ state the issues and facts relevant to the appeal, and ‘ “state the law that supports your position and explain how the law applies to the facts of your case.” ’ ” (Halbert, supra, 545 U.S. at p. 622 , quoting Michigan’s Application for Leave to Appeal After Sentencing on Plea of Guilty or Nolo Contendere.) In essence, the Michigan rule required abbreviated appeals from pro se defendants before the court would appoint appellate counsel for a full-fledged appeal o | 1 | 2009–2009 |
People v. Rivera
green
2 sentences1998Code, § 1.07, subd. (4)(c))]; State v. Boyenger (1973) 95 Idaho 396 [ 509 P.2d 1317, 1321 ] (Boyenger) [whether one offense is necessarily included in another depends not only on pleadings but on trial evidence]; People v. Rivera (1974) 186 Colo. 24 [ 525 P.2d 431, 434 ] [defendant may request instructions on lesser nonincluded offense under rule which entitles defendant to instructions on “the defense theory of the case as revealed by the evidence”]; People v. Richardson (1980) 409 Mich. 126 [ 293 N.W.2d 332, 338-339 ] [under Michigan’s rule entitling defendant to instructions on all material 1998Code, § 1.07, subd. (4)(c))]; State v. Boyenger (1973) 95 Idaho 396 [ 509 P.2d 1317, 1321 ] (Boyenger) [whether one offense is necessarily included in another depends not only on pleadings but on trial evidence]; People v. Rivera (1974) 186 Colo. 24 [ 525 P.2d 431, 434 ] [defendant may request instructions on lesser nonincluded offense under rule which entitles defendant to instructions on “the defense theory of the case as revealed by the evidence”]; People v. Richardson (1980) 409 Mich. 126 [ 293 N.W.2d 332, 338-339 ] [under Michigan’s rule entitling defendant to instructions on all material | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Boyenger
green
2 sentences1998Code, § 1.07, subd. (4)(c))]; State v. Boyenger (1973) 95 Idaho 396 [ 509 P.2d 1317, 1321 ] (Boyenger) [whether one offense is necessarily included in another depends not only on pleadings but on trial evidence]; People v. Rivera (1974) 186 Colo. 24 [ 525 P.2d 431, 434 ] [defendant may request instructions on lesser nonincluded offense under rule which entitles defendant to instructions on “the defense theory of the case as revealed by the evidence”]; People v. Richardson (1980) 409 Mich. 126 [ 293 N.W.2d 332, 338-339 ] [under Michigan’s rule entitling defendant to instructions on all material 1998Code, § 1.07, subd. (4)(c))]; State v. Boyenger (1973) 95 Idaho 396 [ 509 P.2d 1317, 1321 ] (Boyenger) [whether one offense is necessarily included in another depends not only on pleadings but on trial evidence]; People v. Rivera (1974) 186 Colo. 24 [ 525 P.2d 431, 434 ] [defendant may request instructions on lesser nonincluded offense under rule which entitles defendant to instructions on “the defense theory of the case as revealed by the evidence”]; People v. Richardson (1980) 409 Mich. 126 [ 293 N.W.2d 332, 338-339 ] [under Michigan’s rule entitling defendant to instructions on all material | 1 | 1998–1998 |
People v. Richardson
green
2 sentences1998Code, § 1.07, subd. (4)(c))]; State v. Boyenger (1973) 95 Idaho 396 [ 509 P.2d 1317, 1321 ] (Boyenger) [whether one offense is necessarily included in another depends not only on pleadings but on trial evidence]; People v. Rivera (1974) 186 Colo. 24 [ 525 P.2d 431, 434 ] [defendant may request instructions on lesser nonincluded offense under rule which entitles defendant to instructions on “the defense theory of the case as revealed by the evidence”]; People v. Richardson (1980) 409 Mich. 126 [ 293 N.W.2d 332, 338-339 ] [under Michigan’s rule entitling defendant to instructions on all material 1998Code, § 1.07, subd. (4)(c))]; State v. Boyenger (1973) 95 Idaho 396 [ 509 P.2d 1317, 1321 ] (Boyenger) [whether one offense is necessarily included in another depends not only on pleadings but on trial evidence]; People v. Rivera (1974) 186 Colo. 24 [ 525 P.2d 431, 434 ] [defendant may request instructions on lesser nonincluded offense under rule which entitles defendant to instructions on “the defense theory of the case as revealed by the evidence”]; People v. Richardson (1980) 409 Mich. 126 [ 293 N.W.2d 332, 338-339 ] [under Michigan’s rule entitling defendant to instructions on all material | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cornelison v. Chaney
green
1 sentence1996(Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. 462 .) And in Cornelison, we found a Nevada trucking company’s history of contacts with California sufficient to establish jurisdiction, although these contacts did not literally cause the accident in Nevada that was the subject of the lawsuit. ( Cornelison, supra, 16 Cal.3d 143 .) The foregoing authorities call into question the utility of importing a causation test from tort law into the area of jurisdiction in order to evaluate a matter that fundamentally is one of relationship and fairness, rather than causation. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Mills v. Municipal Court
green
2 sentences1979The court ruled that where a defendant was not advised of his right to compulsory process, but was advised of the other rights in such a manner so it could be reasonably concluded that the defendant was giving up a right to a trial and the rights associated with a trial, the omission of advice concerning compulsory process did not require reversal. 2 In Mills v. Municipal Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 288, 305 , our Supreme Court held that the written change of plea form, attached to the opinion, supplemented by the in-court colloquy with defendant’s counsel, constituted a fully adequate “on-the-rec 1979The court ruled that where a defendant was not advised of his right to compulsory process, but was advised of the other rights in such a manner so it could be reasonably concluded that the defendant was giving up a right to a trial and the rights associated with a trial, the omission of advice concerning compulsory process did not require reversal. 2 In Mills v. Municipal Court, supra, 10 Cal.3d 288, 305 , our Supreme Court held that the written change of plea form, attached to the opinion, supplemented by the in-court colloquy with defendant’s counsel, constituted a fully adequate “on-the-rec | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Albrecht Realty Co. v. Town of New Castle
neutral
2 sentences1976The other cases cited by plaintiff (Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com’n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. 1976The other cases cited by plaintiff (Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com’n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Bristow v. City of Woodhaven
green
2 sentences1976Bristow v. City of Woodhaven (1971) 35 Mich.App. 205 [ 192 N.W.2d 322 ], and other Michigan cases cited rest on a unique Michigan doctrine which presumes the unconstitutionality of ordinances restricting certain favored uses of land. 1976Bristow v. City of Woodhaven (1971) 35 Mich.App. 205 [ 192 N.W.2d 322 ], and other Michigan cases cited rest on a unique Michigan doctrine which presumes the unconstitutionality of ordinances restricting certain favored uses of land. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Balto. Plan. Comm'n v. Victor Dev.
green
2 sentences1976The other cases cited by plaintiff (Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com’n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. 1976The other cases cited by plaintiff (Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com’n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
ASSOCIATED HOME BUILDERS ETC. v. City of Walnut Creek
green
2 sentences1976The other cases cited by plaintiff ( Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com'n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. [24] In ascertaining whether a challenged ordinance reasonably relates to the regional welfare, the extent and bounds of the region significantly affected by the ordinance s 1976The other cases cited by plaintiff ( Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com'n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. [24] In ascertaining whether a challenged ordinance reasonably relates to the regional welfare, the extent and bounds of the region significantly affected by the ordinance s | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Beach v. Planning & Zoning Commission
green
2 sentences1976The other cases cited by plaintiff (Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com’n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. 1976The other cases cited by plaintiff ( Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com'n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. [24] In ascertaining whether a challenged ordinance reasonably relates to the regional welfare, the extent and bounds of the region significantly affected by the ordinance s | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Corvo v. City of Waterbury
green
2 sentences1976The other cases cited by plaintiff (Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com’n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. 1976The other cases cited by plaintiff ( Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com'n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. [24] In ascertaining whether a challenged ordinance reasonably relates to the regional welfare, the extent and bounds of the region significantly affected by the ordinance s | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo
green
2 sentences1976The other cases cited by plaintiff ( Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com'n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. [24] In ascertaining whether a challenged ordinance reasonably relates to the regional welfare, the extent and bounds of the region significantly affected by the ordinance s 1976The other cases cited by plaintiff ( Albrecht Realty Company v. Town of New Castle (1957) 8 Misc.2d 255 [ 167 N.Y.S.2d 843 ]; Baltimore Planning Com'n v. Victor Development Co. (1971) 261 Md. 387 [ 275 A.2d 478 ]; Beach v. Planning and Zoning Commission (1954) 141 Conn. 719 [ 103 A.2d 814 ]) merely hold that the zoning ordinance in question exceeds the powers granted local zoning authorities under the laws of those states. [24] In ascertaining whether a challenged ordinance reasonably relates to the regional welfare, the extent and bounds of the region significantly affected by the ordinance s | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Kwiecinski v. Newman's Estate
green
1 sentence1955Because the Walker ease relied upon the Michigan Case of Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 [ 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.N.S. 726 ], as authority for the proposition that a restriction limiting the use of property to “a” dwelling meant only a single dwelling unit could be built thereon, defendants cite the Schadt case as the progenitor of a “Michigan rule” which allegedly supports their position and is applied in such cases as DeGalen v. Barak, 223 Mich. 378 [ 193 N.W. 812 ]; Rosenzweig v. Rose, 201 Mich. 681 [ 167 N.W. 1008 ]; Harris v. Roraback, 137 Mich. 292 [ 100 N.W. 391 , 109 Am.St.Rep. 681 ], | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Harris v. Roraback
green
1 sentence1955Because the Walker ease relied upon the Michigan Case of Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 [ 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.N.S. 726 ], as authority for the proposition that a restriction limiting the use of property to “a” dwelling meant only a single dwelling unit could be built thereon, defendants cite the Schadt case as the progenitor of a “Michigan rule” which allegedly supports their position and is applied in such cases as DeGalen v. Barak, 223 Mich. 378 [ 193 N.W. 812 ]; Rosenzweig v. Rose, 201 Mich. 681 [ 167 N.W. 1008 ]; Harris v. Roraback, 137 Mich. 292 [ 100 N.W. 391 , 109 Am.St.Rep. 681 ], | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Schadt v. Brill
green
2 sentences1955Because the Walker ease relied upon the Michigan Case of Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 [ 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.N.S. 726 ], as authority for the proposition that a restriction limiting the use of property to “a” dwelling meant only a single dwelling unit could be built thereon, defendants cite the Schadt case as the progenitor of a “Michigan rule” which allegedly supports their position and is applied in such cases as DeGalen v. Barak, 223 Mich. 378 [ 193 N.W. 812 ]; Rosenzweig v. Rose, 201 Mich. 681 [ 167 N.W. 1008 ]; Harris v. Roraback, 137 Mich. 292 [ 100 N.W. 391 , 109 Am.St.Rep. 681 ], 1955Because the Walker ease relied upon the Michigan Case of Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 [ 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.N.S. 726 ], as authority for the proposition that a restriction limiting the use of property to “a” dwelling meant only a single dwelling unit could be built thereon, defendants cite the Schadt case as the progenitor of a “Michigan rule” which allegedly supports their position and is applied in such cases as DeGalen v. Barak, 223 Mich. 378 [ 193 N.W. 812 ]; Rosenzweig v. Rose, 201 Mich. 681 [ 167 N.W. 1008 ]; Harris v. Roraback, 137 Mich. 292 [ 100 N.W. 391 , 109 Am.St.Rep. 681 ], | 1 | 1955–1955 |
Rosenzweig v. Rose
green
2 sentences1955Because the Walker ease relied upon the Michigan Case of Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 [ 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.N.S. 726 ], as authority for the proposition that a restriction limiting the use of property to “a” dwelling meant only a single dwelling unit could be built thereon, defendants cite the Schadt case as the progenitor of a “Michigan rule” which allegedly supports their position and is applied in such cases as DeGalen v. Barak, 223 Mich. 378 [ 193 N.W. 812 ]; Rosenzweig v. Rose, 201 Mich. 681 [ 167 N.W. 1008 ]; Harris v. Roraback, 137 Mich. 292 [ 100 N.W. 391 , 109 Am.St.Rep. 681 ], 1955Because the Walker ease relied upon the Michigan Case of Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 [ 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.N.S. 726 ], as authority for the proposition that a restriction limiting the use of property to “a” dwelling meant only a single dwelling unit could be built thereon, defendants cite the Schadt case as the progenitor of a “Michigan rule” which allegedly supports their position and is applied in such cases as DeGalen v. Barak, 223 Mich. 378 [ 193 N.W. 812 ]; Rosenzweig v. Rose, 201 Mich. 681 [ 167 N.W. 1008 ]; Harris v. Roraback, 137 Mich. 292 [ 100 N.W. 391 , 109 Am.St.Rep. 681 ], | 1 | 1955–1955 |
De Galan v. Barak
green
2 sentences1955Because the Walker ease relied upon the Michigan Case of Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 [ 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.N.S. 726 ], as authority for the proposition that a restriction limiting the use of property to “a” dwelling meant only a single dwelling unit could be built thereon, defendants cite the Schadt case as the progenitor of a “Michigan rule” which allegedly supports their position and is applied in such cases as DeGalen v. Barak, 223 Mich. 378 [ 193 N.W. 812 ]; Rosenzweig v. Rose, 201 Mich. 681 [ 167 N.W. 1008 ]; Harris v. Roraback, 137 Mich. 292 [ 100 N.W. 391 , 109 Am.St.Rep. 681 ], 1955Because the Walker ease relied upon the Michigan Case of Schadt v. Brill, 173 Mich. 647 [ 139 N.W. 878 , 45 L.R.A.N.S. 726 ], as authority for the proposition that a restriction limiting the use of property to “a” dwelling meant only a single dwelling unit could be built thereon, defendants cite the Schadt case as the progenitor of a “Michigan rule” which allegedly supports their position and is applied in such cases as DeGalen v. Barak, 223 Mich. 378 [ 193 N.W. 812 ]; Rosenzweig v. Rose, 201 Mich. 681 [ 167 N.W. 1008 ]; Harris v. Roraback, 137 Mich. 292 [ 100 N.W. 391 , 109 Am.St.Rep. 681 ], | 1 | 1955–1955 |
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.