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 1927–2010 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Serafin v. Serafingreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 3 |
Maxwell v. Maxwellgreen2 sentences1976Also in Maxwell v Maxwell, 15 Mich App 607, 618 ; 167 NW2d 114 (1969), lv den, 381 Mich 815 (1969), then Judge (now Justice) Levin discussed what is known as Lord Mansfield’s rule in detail. 1976Also in Maxwell v Maxwell, 15 Mich App 607, 618 ; 167 NW2d 114 (1969), lv den, 381 Mich 815 (1969), then Judge (now Justice) Levin discussed what is known as Lord Mansfield’s rule in detail. | 1 | 2 |
Placek v. City of Sterling Heightsgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
Gruskin v. Fishergreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
People v. Aarongreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
Ghaffari v. Turner Construction Co.green2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
James v. Albertsgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
Ritchie-Gamester v. City of Berkleygreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
Daley v. LaCroixgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kevorkiangreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
People v. Kreinergreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
Stitt v. Holland Abundant Life Fellowshipgreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
People v. Stevensongreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 12-13 , 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the "impact" requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct); Womack v. Buchhorn, 384 Mich. 718, 724-725 , 187 N.W.2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1 , 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v. Taylor, 398 Mich. 41 , 247 N.W.2d 512 (1976) (abrogating t 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Egbert v. Greenwalt
green
2 sentences1976Egbert v Greenwalt, 44 Mich 245 (38 Am Rep 260) [ 6 NW 654 (1880)]; People v Case, 171 Mich 282 [ 137 NW 55 (1912)]." In re Wright's Estate, 237 Mich 375, 379 ; 211 NW 746 (1927). [1] It is the application of this rule which plaintiff assigns as error on appeal. 1976Egbert v Greenwalt, 44 Mich 245 (38 Am Rep 260) [ 6 NW 654 (1880)]; People v Case, 171 Mich 282 [ 137 NW 55 (1912)]." In re Wright's Estate, 237 Mich 375, 379 ; 211 NW 746 (1927). [1] It is the application of this rule which plaintiff assigns as error on appeal. | 3 | 1927–1976 |
In Re Wright's Estate
neutral
2 sentences1976Egbert v Greenwalt, 44 Mich 245 (38 Am Rep 260) [ 6 NW 654 (1880)]; People v Case, 171 Mich 282 [ 137 NW 55 (1912)]." In re Wright's Estate, 237 Mich 375, 379 ; 211 NW 746 (1927). [1] It is the application of this rule which plaintiff assigns as error on appeal. 1969However, the application of Lord Mansfield’s rule in In re Wright’s Estate (1927), 237 Mich 375 , is controlling because there, as in the instant case, plaintiff would be legitimate if either husband were deemed the father. 5 In the Wright Case, a majority of the Supreme Court affirmed rejection of the testimony of the putative father regarding nonaccess and facts tending to establish nonaccess. | 2 | 1969–1976 |
Yanoff v. Yanoff
green
2 sentences1976NOTES [1] Yanoff v Yanoff, 237 Mich 383 ; 211 NW 735 (1927), a companion case to In re Wright's Estate, stated that Lord Mansfield's rule prohibits the husband or wife from testifying as to both "access or nonaccess of the husband, antenuptial or postnuptial". 237 Mich at 389. 1976NOTES [1] Yanoff v Yanoff, 237 Mich 383 ; 211 NW 735 (1927), a companion case to In re Wright's Estate, stated that Lord Mansfield's rule prohibits the husband or wife from testifying as to both "access or nonaccess of the husband, antenuptial or postnuptial". 237 Mich at 389. | 2 | 1969–1976 |
Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Pittman v. City of Taylor
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Plumley v. Klein
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Womack v. Buchhorn
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Berger v. Weber
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do 2010See, e.g., Daley v LaCroix, 384 Mich 4, 12-13 ; 179 NW2d 390 (1970) (rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct); Womack v Buchhorn, 384 Mich 718, 724-725 ; 187 NW2d 218 (1971) (rejecting the common-law disallowance of recovery for negligently inflicted prenatal injury); Plumley v Klein, 388 Mich 1 ; 199 NW2d 169 (1972) (abolishing the common-law rule that children cannot bring a tort cause of action against their parents); Pittman v Taylor, 398 Mich 41 ; 247 NW2d 512 (1976) (abrogating the common-law do | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Smith v. Robbins
green
2 sentences1985(Emphasis added.) *374 The change may have been prompted by Smith v Robbins, 91 Mich App 284 ; 283 NW2d 725 (1979), lv den 408 Mich 853 (1980), which warned of equal protection problems in the Winsett interpretation of the statute. 7 See also Serafin v Serafin, 401 Mich 629 ; 258 NW2d 461 (1977), which discarded Lord Mansfield’s rule. 1985(Emphasis added.) *374 The change may have been prompted by Smith v Robbins, 91 Mich App 284 ; 283 NW2d 725 (1979), lv den 408 Mich 853 (1980), which warned of equal protection problems in the Winsett interpretation of the statute. 7 See also Serafin v Serafin, 401 Mich 629 ; 258 NW2d 461 (1977), which discarded Lord Mansfield’s rule. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
People v. Wiseman
green
2 sentences1976I would affirm the trial court’s application of Lord Mansfield’s rule for the reasons set forth in People v Wiseman, 63 Mich App 137 ; 234 NW2d 429 (1975). 1976I would affirm the trial court’s application of Lord Mansfield’s rule for the reasons set forth in People v Wiseman, 63 Mich App 137 ; 234 NW2d 429 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
People v. Case
green
2 sentences1976Egbert v Greenwalt, 44 Mich 245 (38 Am Rep 260) [ 6 NW 654 (1880)]; People v Case, 171 Mich 282 [ 137 NW 55 (1912)]." In re Wright's Estate, 237 Mich 375, 379 ; 211 NW 746 (1927). [1] It is the application of this rule which plaintiff assigns as error on appeal. 1976Egbert v Greenwalt, 44 Mich 245 (38 Am Rep 260) [ 6 NW 654 (1880)]; People v Case, 171 Mich 282 [ 137 NW 55 (1912)]." In re Wright's Estate, 237 Mich 375, 379 ; 211 NW 746 (1927). [1] It is the application of this rule which plaintiff assigns as error on appeal. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Wechsler v. Mroczkowski
green
2 sentences1976We never intended it to be so, Wechsler v Mroczkowski, 351 Mich 483, 489 ; 88 NW2d 394 (1958), Magarell v Magarell, 327 Mich 372, 376 ; 41 NW2d 898 (1950). 1976We never intended it to be so, Wechsler v Mroczkowski, 351 Mich 483, 489 ; 88 NW2d 394 (1958), Magarell v Magarell, 327 Mich 372, 376 ; 41 NW2d 898 (1950). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Magarell v. Magarell
green
2 sentences1976We never intended it to be so, Wechsler v Mroczkowski, 351 Mich 483, 489 ; 88 NW2d 394 (1958), Magarell v Magarell, 327 Mich 372, 376 ; 41 NW2d 898 (1950). 1976We never intended it to be so, Wechsler v Mroczkowski, 351 Mich 483, 489 ; 88 NW2d 394 (1958), Magarell v Magarell, 327 Mich 372, 376 ; 41 NW2d 898 (1950). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
In Re the Estate of Findlay
green
2 sentences1969What is often forgotten about Lord Mansfield’s rule is that its modification or abolition would not *617 affect the very strong presumption of legitimacy,' a presumption so strong that it has been said that it could hot fail “unless common sense and reason are outraged by a holding that it abides.” In re Findlay (1930), 253 NY 1 ( 170 NE 471, 573 ), per Cardozo, C. 1969What is often forgotten about Lord Mansfield’s rule is that its modification or abolition would not *617 affect the very strong presumption of legitimacy,' a presumption so strong that it has been said that it could hot fail “unless common sense and reason are outraged by a holding that it abides.” In re Findlay (1930), 253 NY 1 ( 170 NE 471, 573 ), per Cardozo, C. | 1 | 1969–1969 |
People v. Bedell
green
1 sentence1969People v. Bedell (1955), 342 Mich 398 , 8 While it would appear that many jurisdictions still follow Lord Mansfield’s rule as originally stated, i.e., neither the husband nor the wife may testify to nonaeeess between them, there ’ is more diversity as to the admissibility of testimony showing access of .the. husband to the wife (10 Am Jur 2d, Bastards, §§ 33, 34, pp 8'69, 870) and it is generally held that the wife may testify to illicit intercourse with another man (10 Am Jur 2d, Bastards, § 35, pp 870, 871). | 1 | 1969–1969 |
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.