68 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Antisdale v. City of Galesburg
green
2 sentences2025Thus, this Court’s “review of decisions of the Tax Tribunal, in the absence of fraud, is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle; the factual findings of the tribunal are final, provided that they are supported by competent and substantial evidence.” Antisdale v Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277 ; 362 NW2d 632 (1984). [President Inn Props, LLC, 291 Mich App at 630-631 .] Under this standard and the circumstances at issue here, our review is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law in dismissing the case.4 B. 2025Thus, this Court’s “review of decisions of the Tax Tribunal, in the absence of fraud, is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle; the factual findings of the tribunal are final, provided that they are supported by competent and substantial evidence.” Antisdale v Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277 ; 362 NW2d 632 (1984). [President Inn Props, LLC, 291 Mich App at 630-631 .] Under this standard and the circumstances at issue here, our review is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law in dismissing the case.4 B. | 15 | 1985–2025 |
President Inn Properties, LLC v. City of Grand Rapids
green
2 sentences2025PROPERTY VALUATION A. STANDARD OF REVIEW “[T]his Court’s review of decisions of the Tax Tribunal, in the absence of fraud, is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle; the factual findings of the tribunal are final, provided that they are supported by competent and substantial evidence.” President Inn Props, LLC v Grand Rapids, 291 Mich App 625, 631 ; 806 NW2d 342 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025PROPERTY VALUATION A. STANDARD OF REVIEW “[T]his Court’s review of decisions of the Tax Tribunal, in the absence of fraud, is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle; the factual findings of the tribunal are final, provided that they are supported by competent and substantial evidence.” President Inn Props, LLC v Grand Rapids, 291 Mich App 625, 631 ; 806 NW2d 342 (2011) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 9 | 2015–2025 |
Meijer, Inc v. City of Midland
green
2 sentences2019Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 482-483 ; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). -4- In Menard, Inc v Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 519-520 ; 891 NW2d 1 (2016), this Court recently summarized the standard of review as follows: In the absence of fraud, our review of the tribunal’s determinations “is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Meijer, Inc v Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5 ; 610 NW2d 242 (2000). 2019Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 482-483 ; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). -4- In Menard, Inc v Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 519-520 ; 891 NW2d 1 (2016), this Court recently summarized the standard of review as follows: In the absence of fraud, our review of the tribunal’s determinations “is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Meijer, Inc v Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5 ; 610 NW2d 242 (2000). | 7 | 2014–2019 |
Meadowlanes Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass'n v. City of Holland
green
2 sentences2019Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 482-483 ; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). -4- In Menard, Inc v Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 519-520 ; 891 NW2d 1 (2016), this Court recently summarized the standard of review as follows: In the absence of fraud, our review of the tribunal’s determinations “is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Meijer, Inc v Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5 ; 610 NW2d 242 (2000). 2019Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 482-483 ; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). -4- In Menard, Inc v Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 519-520 ; 891 NW2d 1 (2016), this Court recently summarized the standard of review as follows: In the absence of fraud, our review of the tribunal’s determinations “is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Meijer, Inc v Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5 ; 610 NW2d 242 (2000). | 6 | 1994–2026 |
Leahy v. Orion Township
green
2 sentences2018“Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Leahy v Orion Twp, 269 Mich App 527, 529 ; 711 NW2d 438 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2018“Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Leahy v Orion Twp, 269 Mich App 527, 529 ; 711 NW2d 438 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 5 | 2018–2019 |
Gillette Co. v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences1998Gillette Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 303, 306 ; 497 NW2d 595 (1993). 1998Gillette Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 303, 306 ; 497 NW2d 595 (1993). | 4 | 1993–1998 |
Curis Big Boy, Inc v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2022“Our review of Tax Tribunal decisions, absent fraud, is limited to whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle.” Curis Big Boy, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 206 Mich App 139, 143 ; 520 NW2d 369 (1994). 2022“Our review of Tax Tribunal decisions, absent fraud, is limited to whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle.” Curis Big Boy, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 206 Mich App 139, 143 ; 520 NW2d 369 (1994). | 3 | 2015–2022 |
Menard, Inc v. City of Escanaba
green
2 sentences2019Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 482-483 ; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). -4- In Menard, Inc v Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 519-520 ; 891 NW2d 1 (2016), this Court recently summarized the standard of review as follows: In the absence of fraud, our review of the tribunal’s determinations “is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Meijer, Inc v Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5 ; 610 NW2d 242 (2000). 2019Meadowlanes Ltd Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 437 Mich 473, 482-483 ; 473 NW2d 636 (1991). -4- In Menard, Inc v Escanaba, 315 Mich App 512, 519-520 ; 891 NW2d 1 (2016), this Court recently summarized the standard of review as follows: In the absence of fraud, our review of the tribunal’s determinations “is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Meijer, Inc v Midland, 240 Mich App 1, 5 ; 610 NW2d 242 (2000). | 3 | 2018–2019 |
Michigan Properties, LLC v. Meridian Township
green
2 sentences2019“The [MTT’s] factual findings are final if they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Mich Props, LLC v Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518, 527 ; 817 NW2d 548 (2012). 2016Mich Props, LLC v Meridian Twp, 491 Mich 518, 527-528 ; 817 NW2d 548 (2012). | 3 | 2014–2019 |
Georgetown Place Cooperative v. City of Taylor
green
2 sentences2015“Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Georgetown Place Coop v City of Taylor, 226 Mich App 33, 43 ; 572 NW2d 232 (1997). 2015“Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Georgetown Place Coop v City of Taylor, 226 Mich App 33, 43 ; 572 NW2d 232 (1997). | 3 | 1998–2015 |
Fisher-New Center Co. v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences1988Const 1963, art 6, §28; Fisher-New Center Co v State Tax Comm (On Rehearing), 381 Mich 713 ; 167 NW2d 263 (1969). 1988Const 1963, art 6, §28; Fisher-New Center Co v State Tax Comm (On Rehearing), 381 Mich 713 ; 167 NW2d 263 (1969). | 3 | 1985–1988 |
Forest Hills Cooperative v. City of Ann Arbor
green
2 sentences2025“Const 1963, art 9, § 3 requires that the ‘true cash value’ be used to determine property taxes.” Forest Hills Coop v Ann Arbor, 305 Mich App 572, 587 ; 854 NW2d 172 (2014). 2019Thus, this Court’s review of decisions of the Tax Tribunal, in the absence of fraud, is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle; the factual findings of the tribunal are final, provided they are supported by competent and substantial evidence. [President Inn Props, LLC v Grand Rapids, 291 Mich App 625, 630-631 ; 806 NW2d 342 (2011) (selected internal citations and quotation marks omitted).] “Substantial evidence must be more than a scintilla of evidence, although it may be substantially less than a preponderance of the evidence.” Forest Hil | 2 | 2019–2025 |
Wayne County v. Michigan State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2015“When fraud is not alleged, appellate courts are limited in their review of MTT decisions to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle.” Wayne Co v Michigan State Tax Com’n, 261 Mich App 174, 186 ; 682 NW2d 100 (2004). 2015“When fraud is not alleged, appellate courts are limited in their review of MTT decisions to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle.” Wayne Co v Michigan State Tax Com’n, 261 Mich App 174, 186 ; 682 NW2d 100 (2004). | 2 | 2015–2025 |
Comcast Cablevision of Sterling Heights, Inc v. City of Sterling Heights
green
2 sentences2018This Court’s review of Tax Tribunal decisions is “limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle; the factual findings of the tribunal are final, provided they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Comcast Cablevision of Sterling Hts, Inc v Sterling Hts, 218 Mich App 8, 11 ; 553 NW2d 627 (1996). 2018This Court’s review of Tax Tribunal decisions is “limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle; the factual findings of the tribunal are final, provided they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” Comcast Cablevision of Sterling Hts, Inc v Sterling Hts, 218 Mich App 8, 11 ; 553 NW2d 627 (1996). | 2 | 1997–2018 |
City of Mt Pleasant v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2018Id., citing Const 1963, art 6, § 28. 2018Id., citing Const 1963, art 6, § 28. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Kadzban v. City of Grandville
green
2 sentences2018“Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Leahy v Orion Twp, 269 Mich App 527, 529 ; 711 NW2d 438 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he question whether and how much the value of land has increased as the result of certain improvements is factual, to be determined on the basis of evidence presented by the parties.” Kadzban v City of Grandville, 442 Mich 495, 502 ; 502 NW2d 299 (1993). 2018“Absent fraud, this Court’s review of a Tax Tribunal decision is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong legal principle.” Leahy v Orion Twp, 269 Mich App 527, 529 ; 711 NW2d 438 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he question whether and how much the value of land has increased as the result of certain improvements is factual, to be determined on the basis of evidence presented by the parties.” Kadzban v City of Grandville, 442 Mich 495, 502 ; 502 NW2d 299 (1993). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Kivela v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences1994Daguanno v Dep’t of Treasury, 203 Mich App 130, 133 ; 512 NW2d 32 (1993); Kivela v Dep’t of Treasury, 200 Mich App 545, 547 ; 505 NW2d 11 (1993). 1994Daguanno v Dep’t of Treasury, 203 Mich App 130, 133 ; 512 NW2d 32 (1993); Kivela v Dep’t of Treasury, 200 Mich App 545, 547 ; 505 NW2d 11 (1993). | 2 | 1993–1994 |
Meadowlanes Limited Dividend Housing Ass'n v. City of Holland
green
2 sentences1989Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277 ; 362 NW2d 632 (1984). [Meadowlanes, supra, p 245 .] On remand, the Michigan Tax Tribunal was to reconsider the instant case to take into account the value, if any, of the 5.35 percent mortgage interest subsidy. 1987Antisdale v City of Galesburg, 420 Mich 265, 277 ; 362 NW2d 632 (1984); Meadowlanes Limited Dividend Housing Ass’n v City of Holland, 156 Mich App 238, 245 ; 401 NW2d 620 (1986). | 2 | 1987–1989 |
Fradco, Inc. v. Department of Treasury
green
1 sentence2022This Court “defer[s] to the tribunal’s interpretation of a statute that it is charged with administering and enforcing,” Spartan Stores, Inc v Grand Rapids, 307 Mich App 565, 569 ; 861 NW2d 347 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted), but questions involving statutory interpretation present issues of law that are reviewed de novo, id.; Fradco, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 495 Mich 104, 112 ; 845 NW2d 81 (2014). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Spartan Stores, Inc v. City of Grand Rapids
green
2 sentences2022This Court “defer[s] to the tribunal’s interpretation of a statute that it is charged with administering and enforcing,” Spartan Stores, Inc v Grand Rapids, 307 Mich App 565, 569 ; 861 NW2d 347 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted), but questions involving statutory interpretation present issues of law that are reviewed de novo, id.; Fradco, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 495 Mich 104, 112 ; 845 NW2d 81 (2014). 2022This Court “defer[s] to the tribunal’s interpretation of a statute that it is charged with administering and enforcing,” Spartan Stores, Inc v Grand Rapids, 307 Mich App 565, 569 ; 861 NW2d 347 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted), but questions involving statutory interpretation present issues of law that are reviewed de novo, id.; Fradco, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 495 Mich 104, 112 ; 845 NW2d 81 (2014). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
People v. Thompson
neutral
1 sentence2019“When a party does not dispute the facts or allege fraud, this Court reviews whether the tribunal made an error of law or adopted a wrong principle.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
National Music Camp v. Green Lake Township
green
2 sentences2016The Tribunal also relied on Nat’l Music Camp v Green Lake Twp, 76 Mich App 608 ; 257 NW2d 188 (1977). 2016The Tribunal also relied on Nat’l Music Camp v Green Lake Twp, 76 Mich App 608 ; 257 NW2d 188 (1977). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Payne v. Muskegon
green
2 sentences2015“Substantial evidence is ‘the amount of evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion,’ and it may be ‘substantially less than a preponderance.’ ” Inter-Cooperative Council v Dep’t of Treasury, 257 Mich App 219, 221-222 ; 668 NW2d 181 (2003), quoting In re Payne, 444 Mich 679, 692 ; 514 NW2d 121 (1994). 2015“Substantial evidence is ‘the amount of evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion,’ and it may be ‘substantially less than a preponderance.’ ” Inter-Cooperative Council v Dep’t of Treasury, 257 Mich App 219, 221-222 ; 668 NW2d 181 (2003), quoting In re Payne, 444 Mich 679, 692 ; 514 NW2d 121 (1994). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Inter Cooperative Council v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2015“Substantial evidence is ‘the amount of evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion,’ and it may be ‘substantially less than a preponderance.’ ” Inter-Cooperative Council v Dep’t of Treasury, 257 Mich App 219, 221-222 ; 668 NW2d 181 (2003), quoting In re Payne, 444 Mich 679, 692 ; 514 NW2d 121 (1994). 2015“Substantial evidence is ‘the amount of evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to support a conclusion,’ and it may be ‘substantially less than a preponderance.’ ” Inter-Cooperative Council v Dep’t of Treasury, 257 Mich App 219, 221-222 ; 668 NW2d 181 (2003), quoting In re Payne, 444 Mich 679, 692 ; 514 NW2d 121 (1994). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
City of Romulus v. Department of Environmental Quality
green
2 sentences2015We accept the factual findings of the tribunal as final, provided they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.” Curis Big Boy, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 206 Mich App 139, 143 ; 520 NW2d 369 (1994). “[W]e review de novo the interpretation and application of unambiguous statutes and administrative rules.” Romulus v Mich Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 260 Mich App 54, 64 ; 678 NW2d 444 (2003). 2015We accept the factual findings of the tribunal as final, provided they are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.” Curis Big Boy, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 206 Mich App 139, 143 ; 520 NW2d 369 (1994). “[W]e review de novo the interpretation and application of unambiguous statutes and administrative rules.” Romulus v Mich Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 260 Mich App 54, 64 ; 678 NW2d 444 (2003). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Kmart Michigan Property Services, LLC v. Department of Treasury
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Wexford Medical Group v. City of Cadillac
green
2 sentences2009Wexford Med Group v City of Cadillac, 474 Mich 192, 201-202 ; 713 NW2d 734 (2006). 2009Wexford Med Group v City of Cadillac, 474 Mich 192, 201-202 ; 713 NW2d 734 (2006). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Rose Hill Center, Inc v. Holly Township
green
2 sentences2002STANDARD OF REVIEW In Rose Hill Center, Inc v Holly Twp, 224 Mich App 28, 31 ; 568 NW2d 332 (1997), this Court set forth the standard by which we review decisions of the Tax Tribunal: *492 Judicial review of a determination by the Tax Tribunal is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or applied a wrong [legal] principle. 2002STANDARD OF REVIEW In Rose Hill Center, Inc v Holly Twp, 224 Mich App 28, 31 ; 568 NW2d 332 (1997), this Court set forth the standard by which we review decisions of the Tax Tribunal: *492 Judicial review of a determination by the Tax Tribunal is limited to determining whether the tribunal made an error of law or applied a wrong [legal] principle. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Sandy Pines Wilderness Trails, Inc v. Salem Township
green
2 sentences2000Sandy Pines Wilderness Trails, Inc v Salem Twp, 232 Mich App 1, 9 ; 591 NW2d 658 (1998). 2000Sandy Pines Wilderness Trails, Inc v Salem Twp, 232 Mich App 1, 9 ; 591 NW2d 658 (1998). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Schubert v. Department of Treasury
neutral
2 sentences1999Schubert v Dep’t of Treasury, 212 Mich App 555, 558 ; 538 NW2d 447 (1995). 1999Schubert v Dep’t of Treasury, 212 Mich App 555, 558 ; 538 NW2d 447 (1995). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Continental Cablevision of Michigan, Inc v. City of Roseville green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Samonek v. Norvell Township green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Daguanno v. Department of Treasury neutral | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Dow Chemical Co. v. Department of Treasury neutral | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Coyne v. Highland Township neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Dowagiac Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass'n v. City of Dowagiac green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.