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 1973–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reynolds v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2018See Auto-Owners Ins Co v Gallup, 191 Mich App 181, 183-184 ; 477 NW2d 463 (1991) (“[T]he general rule [is] that an insured’s failure to render a proof of loss within sixty days of the loss precludes a claim under the policy, absent waiver of the sixty-day requirement by the insurance carrier, because compliance with the requirement is considered a condition precedent to the liability of the insurer.”); Reynolds v Allstate Ins Co, 123 Mich App 488 , 490- 491; 332 NW2d 583 (1983) (“[W]here the policy includes standard language . . . requiring a written proof of loss within 60 days of the loss[,] 2018See Auto-Owners Ins Co v Gallup, 191 Mich App 181, 183-184 ; 477 NW2d 463 (1991) (“[T]he general rule [is] that an insured’s failure to render a proof of loss within sixty days of the loss precludes a claim under the policy, absent waiver of the sixty-day requirement by the insurance carrier, because compliance with the requirement is considered a condition precedent to the liability of the insurer.”); Reynolds v Allstate Ins Co, 123 Mich App 488 , 490- 491; 332 NW2d 583 (1983) (“[W]here the policy includes standard language . . . requiring a written proof of loss within 60 days of the loss[,] | 3 | 3 |
Auto-Owners Insurance v. Gallupgreen2 sentences2018See Auto-Owners Ins Co v Gallup, 191 Mich App 181, 183-184 ; 477 NW2d 463 (1991) (“[T]he general rule [is] that an insured’s failure to render a proof of loss within sixty days of the loss precludes a claim under the policy, absent waiver of the sixty-day requirement by the insurance carrier, because compliance with the requirement is considered a condition precedent to the liability of the insurer.”); Reynolds v Allstate Ins Co, 123 Mich App 488 , 490- 491; 332 NW2d 583 (1983) (“[W]here the policy includes standard language . . . requiring a written proof of loss within 60 days of the loss[,] 2018See Auto-Owners Ins Co v Gallup, 191 Mich App 181, 183-184 ; 477 NW2d 463 (1991) (“[T]he general rule [is] that an insured’s failure to render a proof of loss within sixty days of the loss precludes a claim under the policy, absent waiver of the sixty-day requirement by the insurance carrier, because compliance with the requirement is considered a condition precedent to the liability of the insurer.”); Reynolds v Allstate Ins Co, 123 Mich App 488 , 490- 491; 332 NW2d 583 (1983) (“[W]here the policy includes standard language . . . requiring a written proof of loss within 60 days of the loss[,] | 2 | 2 |
Allen v. Michigan Basic Property Insurancegreen2 sentences2025See Allen v Michigan Basic Prop Ins Co, 249 Mich App 66, 73 ; 640 NW2d 903 (2001). 2025See Allen v Michigan Basic Prop Ins Co, 249 Mich App 66, 73 ; 640 NW2d 903 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Fulton v. William Beaumont Hospitalgreen2 sentences2008Id. at 82-83. 2008Id. at 82-83, 655 N.W.2d 569 . | 1 | 1 |
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2003While a delay that impairs the defense must be taken most seriously, Collins, supra at 694 , we do not equate an enhancement of the prosecution’s case with the impairment of the defense. *494 This does not, for example, involve an issue of the reliability of eye-witness identification that may degrade over time, or the loss of a defense witness. 2003See Collins, supra at 694-695 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frank W Lynch & Co v. Flex Technologies, Inc
green
2 sentences2016At the outset, we note our Supreme Court’s distaste for legislative history, describing it as “a feeble indicator of legislative intent [that] is therefore a generally unpersuasive tool of statutory construction.” Frank W Lynch & Co v Flex Tech, Inc, 463 Mich 578, 587 ; 624 NW2d 180 (2001). 2016At the outset, we note our Supreme Court’s distaste for legislative history, describing it as “a feeble indicator of legislative intent [that] is therefore a generally unpersuasive tool of statutory construction.” Frank W Lynch & Co v Flex Tech, Inc, 463 Mich 578, 587 ; 624 NW2d 180 (2001). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gillette Co. v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2005In 1993, this Court issued decisions in Gillette Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 303 ; 497 NW2d 595 (1993), and in Guardian Industries Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 363 ; 499 NW2d 349 (1993), that resolved the question of which federal standard set the “minimum contacts” a taxpayer must have with Michigan for this state to subject the taxpayer to the SBT. 2005In 1993, this Court issued decisions in Gillette Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 303 ; 497 NW2d 595 (1993), and in Guardian Industries Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 363 ; 499 NW2d 349 (1993), that resolved the question of which federal standard set the “minimum contacts” a taxpayer must have with Michigan for this state to subject the taxpayer to the SBT. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Guardian Industries Corp. v. DEP'T OF TREASURY CARGILL, INC.
green
2 sentences2005In 1993, this Court issued decisions in Gillette Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 303 ; 497 NW2d 595 (1993), and in Guardian Industries Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 363 ; 499 NW2d 349 (1993), that resolved the question of which federal standard set the “minimum contacts” a taxpayer must have with Michigan for this state to subject the taxpayer to the SBT. 2005In 1993, this Court issued decisions in Gillette Co v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 303 ; 497 NW2d 595 (1993), and in Guardian Industries Corp v Dep’t of Treasury, 198 Mich App 363 ; 499 NW2d 349 (1993), that resolved the question of which federal standard set the “minimum contacts” a taxpayer must have with Michigan for this state to subject the taxpayer to the SBT. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Tsingos v. Michigan Packing Co.
neutral
2 sentences1973GCR 1963, 738.2(3) provides that the writ shall issue if plaintiff or his representative avers that: "the plaintiff is justly apprehensive of the loss of his claim against the defendant unless a writ of garnishment is issued and setting forth the facts in support of this claim. " (Emphasis supplied.) The question regarding the degree of specificity of the affidavit on prejudgment garnishments under the present court rule appears to be one of first impression in the appellate courts of Michigan. *670 In Tsingos v Michigan Packing Co, 272 Mich 7 ; 260 NW 783 (1935), the Court stated that the pur 1973GCR 1963, 738.2(3) provides that the writ shall issue if plaintiff or his representative avers that: "the plaintiff is justly apprehensive of the loss of his claim against the defendant unless a writ of garnishment is issued and setting forth the facts in support of this claim. " (Emphasis supplied.) The question regarding the degree of specificity of the affidavit on prejudgment garnishments under the present court rule appears to be one of first impression in the appellate courts of Michigan. *670 In Tsingos v Michigan Packing Co, 272 Mich 7 ; 260 NW 783 (1935), the Court stated that the pur | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.