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.
9 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Peterman v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property 2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property | 2 | 2 |
Fidlin v. Collisongreen2 sentences2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property 2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property | 2 | 2 |
Barnard Manufacturing Co. v. Gates Performance Engineering, Inc.green1 sentence2023See Barnard Mfg, 285 Mich App at 370 (stating that, if the moving party fails to properly support its motion, the nonmoving party has no duty to respond and the trial court should deny the motion). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dean v. Department of Natural Resources
green
2 sentences2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property 2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Paul v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property 2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property | 2 | 2020–2020 |
City of Detroit v. Walker
green
2 sentences2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property 2020During the redemption period, 94 Detroit v Walker, 445 Mich 682, 701-704 ; 520 NW2d 135 (1994) (explaining that citizens have a duty to pay their taxes and that the Legislature may enact procedural schemes “to secure taxes owed”); Peterman, 446 Mich at 184 (“ ‘[I]t can never be lawful to compel any man to give up his property, when it is not needed, or to lose it, whether needed or not, without being made whole.’ ”), quoting Paul, 32 Mich at 119 ; see also Fidlin v Collison, 9 Mich App 157, 167 ; 156 NW2d 53 (1967) (holding that under the GPTA’s provision allowing seizure of personal property | 2 | 2020–2020 |
In Re PETITION BY WAYNE COUNTY TREASURER
green
2 sentences2025Finally, MCL 211.78i(10) provides that the failure of the foreclosing governmental unit to comply with any provision of this section does not invalidate any proceeding under this act if the person with a property interest is notified of the show cause hearing under section 78j and the foreclosure hearing under section 78k consistent with the minimum due process required under the state constitution of 1963 and the Constitution of the United States. [Emphasis added.] Our Supreme Court has held that the Legislature cannot create a statutory scheme in the GPTA that allows a property owner to be d 2025Finally, MCL 211.78i(10) provides that the failure of the foreclosing governmental unit to comply with any provision of this section does not invalidate any proceeding under this act if the person with a property interest is notified of the show cause hearing under section 78j and the foreclosure hearing under section 78k consistent with the minimum due process required under the state constitution of 1963 and the Constitution of the United States. [Emphasis added.] Our Supreme Court has held that the Legislature cannot create a statutory scheme in the GPTA that allows a property owner to be d | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Mitchell v. Dahlberg
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Stringer v. Gamble
green
1 sentence2022Degen v Degen’s Estate, 80 Mich App 573, 581-582 ; 264 NW2d 64 (1978), relying upon Stringer v Gamble, 155 Mich App 295 , 300; 118 NW 979 (1909). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Degen v. Oliveto
green
2 sentences2022Degen v Degen’s Estate, 80 Mich App 573, 581-582 ; 264 NW2d 64 (1978), relying upon Stringer v Gamble, 155 Mich App 295 , 300; 118 NW 979 (1909). 2022Degen v Degen’s Estate, 80 Mich App 573, 581-582 ; 264 NW2d 64 (1978), relying upon Stringer v Gamble, 155 Mich App 295 , 300; 118 NW 979 (1909). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Kim v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, Na
green
1 sentence2014Kim, 493 Mich at 116 n 33. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wayne County Treasurer v. Westhaven Manor Ltd. Dividend Housing Ass'n
green
2 sentences2008The notice provisions in § 78i “are designed to ensure that those with an interest in the subject property are aware of the foreclosure proceedings so that they may take advantage of their redemption rights.” In re Petition by Wayne Co Treasurer, 265 Mich App 285, 292-293 ; 698 NW2d 879 (2005). 2008The notice provisions in § 78i “are designed to ensure that those with an interest in the subject property are aware of the foreclosure proceedings so that they may take advantage of their redemption rights.” In re Petition by Wayne Co Treasurer, 265 Mich App 285, 292-293 ; 698 NW2d 879 (2005). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Brownridge v. Michigan Mutual Insurance
green
2 sentences1996Although "[a] voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the 'merits for res judicata purposes,” Brownridge v Michigan Mutual Ins Co, 115 Mich App 745, 748 ; 321 NW2d 798 (1982), the defense asserted by plaintiffs did not arise from the dismissed complaint, but from the arbitration. 1996Although "[a] voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the 'merits for res judicata purposes,” Brownridge v Michigan Mutual Ins Co, 115 Mich App 745, 748 ; 321 NW2d 798 (1982), the defense asserted by plaintiffs did not arise from the dismissed complaint, but from the arbitration. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.