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 1970–2021 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tausz v. Clarion-Goldfield Community School Districtgreen2 sentences2021See Tausz v Clarion- Goldfield Community Sch Dist, 569 NW2d 125, 128 (Iowa, 1997) (noting multiple cases in which the courts discussed the limits of the privilege in this context given that the government “client” represents the public, and that the highest court of one state has suggested that the privilege “ordinarily should not be extended to communications requesting legal advice concerning the agency’s statutory duties even when that issue has been made the subject of litigation”); 1 Attorney-Client Privilege in the United States (December 2021 update), § 4:28, p ___ (noting one federal c 2021See Tausz v Clarion- Goldfield Community Sch Dist, 569 NW2d 125, 128 (Iowa, 1997) (noting multiple cases in which the courts discussed the limits of the privilege in this context given that the government “client” represents the public, and that the highest court of one state has suggested that the privilege “ordinarily should not be extended to communications requesting legal advice concerning the agency’s statutory duties even when that issue has been made the subject of litigation”); 1 Attorney-Client Privilege in the United States (December 2021 update), § 4:28, p ___ (noting one federal c | 2 | 2 |
Howe v. Detroit Free Press, Incgreen1 sentence2003See id. | 1 | 1 |
Rosario v. City of Lansinggreen1 sentence1991In Rosario, supra at 133, n 7 , Justice Fitzger *484 ald, writing for the three-justice plurality, noted that there existed some form of nuisance exception to immunity, though the limits of the exception "present the more difficult question.” In reaching the conclusion that some form of nuisance exception existed, Justice Fitzgerald relied on Pennoyer v Saginaw, 8 Mich 534 (1860). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Dunngreen2 sentences1970See People v. Dunn, supra, 701 . 1970See People v. Dunn, supra, 701 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ward v. Village of Monroeville
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 60 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Callington
green
1 sentence2014Id. at 307 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
green
2 sentences2000In the absence of such guidance it is up to this Court to define the limits of this exception. [5] *493 The dual-persona doctrine, allowing a tort suit in addition to worker's compensation, "is applicable only in those situations in which `the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer.'" Howard, supra at 399-400 , 523 N.W.2d 220 , quoting Wells, supra at 653 , 364 N.W.2d 670 . 2000In the absence of such guidance it is up to this Court to define the limits of this exception. 5 The dual-persona doctrine, allowing a tort suit in addition to worker’s compensation, “is applicable only in those situations in which ‘the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer.’ ” Howard, supra at 399-400 , quoting Wells, supra at 653 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Howard v. White
green
2 sentences2000In the absence of such guidance it is up to this Court to define the limits of this exception. [5] *493 The dual-persona doctrine, allowing a tort suit in addition to worker's compensation, "is applicable only in those situations in which `the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer.'" Howard, supra at 399-400 , 523 N.W.2d 220 , quoting Wells, supra at 653 , 364 N.W.2d 670 . 2000In the absence of such guidance it is up to this Court to define the limits of this exception. 5 The dual-persona doctrine, allowing a tort suit in addition to worker’s compensation, “is applicable only in those situations in which ‘the employer has a second identity which is completely distinct and removed from his status as employer.’ ” Howard, supra at 399-400 , quoting Wells, supra at 653 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Pennoyer v. City of Saginaw
green
1 sentence1991In Rosario, supra at 133, n 7 , Justice Fitzger *484 ald, writing for the three-justice plurality, noted that there existed some form of nuisance exception to immunity, though the limits of the exception "present the more difficult question.” In reaching the conclusion that some form of nuisance exception existed, Justice Fitzgerald relied on Pennoyer v Saginaw, 8 Mich 534 (1860). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Hughes v. Lakey Foundry Corp.
green
1 sentence1984In Thumser and Hughes, supra, the claimants were first disabled in their wage-earning capacities as skilled workers. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.