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 1972–1996 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1976People v Reed, 393 Mich 342 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975), cert den, 422 US 1044, 1048 ; 95 S Ct 2660, 2665 ; 45 L Ed 2d 696, 701 (1975), Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Kelman
green
2 sentences1989In re Attorney Fees of Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson, 406 Mich 497, 503-504 ; 280 NW2d 457 (1979); Foremost, supra. This exception has been applied to the situation where a common fund is created by a subrogor to the subrogee’s benefit. 1989In re Attorney Fees of Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson, 406 Mich 497, 503-504 ; 280 NW2d 457 (1979); Foremost, supra. This exception has been applied to the situation where a common fund is created by a subrogor to the subrogee’s benefit. | 2 | 1983–1989 |
People v. Reed
green
2 sentences1978People v Reed, 393 Mich 342, 362 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975). 1978People v Reed, 393 Mich 342, 362 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975). | 2 | 1976–1978 |
Held v. Comfort Bus Line, Inc.
green
1 sentence1996See, generally, anno: Power of court to resubmit matter to arbitrators for correction or clarification, because of ambiguity or error in, or omission from, arbitration award, 37 ALR3d 200; La Vale Plaza, supra; Eisenstein v Rednick, 8 AD2d 794 ; 187 NYS2d 409 (1959); Held v Comfort Bus Line, Inc, 136 NJL 640; 57 A2d 20 (1948). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Supples v. Hallanan
neutral
1 sentence1996See, generally, anno: Power of court to resubmit matter to arbitrators for correction or clarification, because of ambiguity or error in, or omission from, arbitration award, 37 ALR3d 200; La Vale Plaza, supra; Eisenstein v Rednick, 8 AD2d 794 ; 187 NYS2d 409 (1959); Held v Comfort Bus Line, Inc, 136 NJL 640; 57 A2d 20 (1948). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
In re the Arbitration between Eisenstein & Rednick
neutral
1 sentence1996See, generally, anno: Power of court to resubmit matter to arbitrators for correction or clarification, because of ambiguity or error in, or omission from, arbitration award, 37 ALR3d 200; La Vale Plaza, supra; Eisenstein v Rednick, 8 AD2d 794 ; 187 NYS2d 409 (1959); Held v Comfort Bus Line, Inc, 136 NJL 640; 57 A2d 20 (1948). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gose v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co.
green
2 sentences1988It is in this context that I would place the Michigan rule of res judicata regarding workers’ compensation claims: "[A] compensation award is an adjudication as to the condition of the injured workman at the time it is entered, and conclusive of all matters adjudicable at that time, but it is not an adjudication as to the claimant’s future condition and does not preclude subsequent awards or subsequent modifications of the original award upon a showing that the employee’s physical condition has changed.” [Gose, supra, pp 160-161 . 1988It is in this context that I would place the Michigan rule of res judicata regarding workers' compensation claims: "[A] compensation award is an adjudication as to the condition of the injured workman at the time it is entered, and conclusive of all matters adjudicable at that time, but it is not an adjudication as to the claimant's future condition and does not preclude subsequent awards or subsequent modifications of the original award upon a showing that the employee's physical condition has changed." [ Gose, supra, pp 160-161 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
People v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1980People v Edwards, 396 Mich 551 ; 242 NW2d 739 (1976), MRE 802. 1980People v Edwards, 396 Mich 551 ; 242 NW2d 739 (1976), MRE 802. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Haase v. DePree
green
2 sentences1979Lince v Monson, supra, at 141-142 , Haase v DePree, 3 Mich App 337, 346 ; 142 NW2d 486 (1966). 1979Lince v Monson, supra, at 141-142 , Haase v DePree, 3 Mich App 337, 346 ; 142 NW2d 486 (1966). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Lince v. Monson
green
2 sentences1979Lince v Monson, supra, at 141-142 , Haase v De-Pree, 3 Mich App 337, 346 ; 142 NW2d 486 (1966). 1979Lince v Monson, supra, at 141-142 , Haase v DePree, 3 Mich App 337, 346 ; 142 NW2d 486 (1966). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshire
green
2 sentences1976People v Reed, 393 Mich 342 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975), cert den, 422 US 1044, 1048 ; 95 S Ct 2660, 2665 ; 45 L Ed 2d 696, 701 (1975), Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971). 1976People v Reed, 393 Mich 342 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975), cert den, 422 US 1044, 1048 ; 95 S Ct 2660, 2665 ; 45 L Ed 2d 696, 701 (1975), Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
106 Forsyth Corp. v. Bishop
green
1 sentence1976People v Reed, 393 Mich 342 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975), cert den, 422 US 1044, 1048 ; 95 S Ct 2660, 2665 ; 45 L Ed 2d 696, 701 (1975), Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Boruski v. General Accounting Office
green
1 sentence1976People v Reed, 393 Mich 342 ; 224 NW2d 867 (1975), cert den, 422 US 1044, 1048 ; 95 S Ct 2660, 2665 ; 45 L Ed 2d 696, 701 (1975), Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Vader
neutral
1 sentence1972The final case that must be discussed is State v *472 Vader, 114 NJ Super 260; 276 A2d 151 (1971). | 1 | 1972–1972 |
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.