65 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 27 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morris Pumps v. Centerline Piping, Inc.green2 sentences2025“Even though no contract may exist between two parties, under the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.” Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc, 273 Mich App 187, 193 ; 729 NW2d 898 (2006) (cleaned up). 2025“Even though no contract may exist between two parties, under the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.” Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc, 273 Mich App 187, 193 ; 729 NW2d 898 (2006) (cleaned up). | 6 | 17 |
Karaus v. Bank of New York Mellongreen2 sentences2020“Whether a claim for unjust enrichment can be maintained is a question of law that we review de novo.” Karaus v Bank of New York Mellon, 300 Mich App 9, 22 ; 831 NW2d 897 (2012). -7- In this case, Standard Specification § 108.01 states that “[n]o subcontractor or supplier may maintain an action against the Department for payment relating to the work; any such action must be brought against the Contractor or other responsible party.” Plaintiffs contend that the latter provision cannot apply to an unjust enrichment claim brought by Florence because Florence was not a party to the contract betwee 2020“Whether a claim for unjust enrichment can be maintained is a question of law that we review de novo.” Karaus v Bank of New York Mellon, 300 Mich App 9, 22 ; 831 NW2d 897 (2012). -7- In this case, Standard Specification § 108.01 states that “[n]o subcontractor or supplier may maintain an action against the Department for payment relating to the work; any such action must be brought against the Contractor or other responsible party.” Plaintiffs contend that the latter provision cannot apply to an unjust enrichment claim brought by Florence because Florence was not a party to the contract betwee | 3 | 6 |
Ritter v. Rossgreen2 sentences2020See Sheehan v Suffolk Co, 67 NY2d 52, 59, 60 ; 490 NE2d 523 (1986) (“There is no constitutional prohibition against such a full forfeiture” of the “surplus.”); Ritter v Ross, 207 Wis 2d 476, 484 ; 558 NW2d 909 (App, 1996) (“We thus consider whether the Ritters had a property interest in the excess proceeds of the foreclosure sale . . . .”); Oosterwyk v Milwaukee Co, 31 Wis 2d 513, 517 ; 143 NW2d 497 (1966) (rejecting an unjust-enrichment claim for surplus proceeds). 58 Plaintiffs’ brief states, “The private property interest at issue in this case is privately generated and owned equity.” Plain 2020See Sheehan v Suffolk Co, 67 NY2d 52, 59, 60 ; 490 NE2d 523 (1986) (“There is no constitutional prohibition against such a full forfeiture” of the “surplus.”); Ritter v Ross, 207 Wis 2d 476, 484 ; 558 NW2d 909 (App, 1996) (“We thus consider whether the Ritters had a property interest in the excess proceeds of the foreclosure sale . . . .”); Oosterwyk v Milwaukee Co, 31 Wis 2d 513, 517 ; 143 NW2d 497 (1966) (rejecting an unjust-enrichment claim for surplus proceeds). 58 Plaintiffs’ brief states, “The private property interest at issue in this case is privately generated and owned equity.” Plain | 2 | 2 |
Sheehan v. County of Suffolkgreen2 sentences2020See Sheehan v Suffolk Co, 67 NY2d 52, 59, 60 ; 490 NE2d 523 (1986) (“There is no constitutional prohibition against such a full forfeiture” of the “surplus.”); Ritter v Ross, 207 Wis 2d 476, 484 ; 558 NW2d 909 (App, 1996) (“We thus consider whether the Ritters had a property interest in the excess proceeds of the foreclosure sale . . . .”); Oosterwyk v Milwaukee Co, 31 Wis 2d 513, 517 ; 143 NW2d 497 (1966) (rejecting an unjust-enrichment claim for surplus proceeds). 58 Plaintiffs’ brief states, “The private property interest at issue in this case is privately generated and owned equity.” Plain 2020See Sheehan v Suffolk Co, 67 NY2d 52, 59, 60 ; 490 NE2d 523 (1986) (“There is no constitutional prohibition against such a full forfeiture” of the “surplus.”); Ritter v Ross, 207 Wis 2d 476, 484 ; 558 NW2d 909 (App, 1996) (“We thus consider whether the Ritters had a property interest in the excess proceeds of the foreclosure sale . . . .”); Oosterwyk v Milwaukee Co, 31 Wis 2d 513, 517 ; 143 NW2d 497 (1966) (rejecting an unjust-enrichment claim for surplus proceeds). 58 Plaintiffs’ brief states, “The private property interest at issue in this case is privately generated and owned equity.” Plain | 2 | 2 |
Kammer Asphalt Paving Co. v. East China Township Schoolsgreen2 sentences2026Under the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, “[a] person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.” Kammer Asphalt Paving Co v East China Twp Sch, 443 Mich 176, 185 ; 504 NW2d 635 (1993) (citation and quotation marks omitted). 2026Under the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, “[a] person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.” Kammer Asphalt Paving Co v East China Twp Sch, 443 Mich 176, 185 ; 504 NW2d 635 (1993) (citation and quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 10 |
AFT Michigan v. Michigangreen2 sentences2025An unjust-enrichment claim is the “equitable counterpart of a legal claim for breach of contract,” AFT Mich v Michigan, 303 Mich App 651, 677 ; 846 NW2d 583 (2014), as such, the statute of limitations for a breach-of-contract claim applies to a claim for unjust enrichment, see Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v Wayne Co, 450 Mich 119 , 127 n 9; 537 NW2d 596 (1995); MCL 600.5815. 2025“To sustain an unjust enrichment claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the defendant’s receipt of a benefit from the plaintiff and (2) an inequity to plaintiff as a result.” AFT Mich v Michigan, 303 Mich App 651, 660-661 ; 846 NW2d 583 (2014). “[T]o prevent unjust enrichment, the law will imply a contract when the defendant has been inequitably enriched at the expense of the plaintiff.” Id. at 661. | 1 | 5 |
Keywell & Rosenfeld v. Bithellgreen2 sentences2021Given that the jury found that there was a contract, that it was breached, and that plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract, either expectancy or reliance damages, a JNOV should have been granted to defendants on the claim for unjust enrichment. “[A] breach of contract claim and an unjust enrichment claim may be brought in the alternative where there is some question of whether an express contract actually existed.” Elia Cos, __ Mich App at __; slip op at 6, citing Keywell and Rosenfeld v Bithell, 254 Mich App 300, 328 ; 657 NW2d 759 (2002). 2021Given that the jury found that there was a contract, that it was breached, and that plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contract, either expectancy or reliance damages, a JNOV should have been granted to defendants on the claim for unjust enrichment. “[A] breach of contract claim and an unjust enrichment claim may be brought in the alternative where there is some question of whether an express contract actually existed.” Elia Cos, __ Mich App at __; slip op at 6, citing Keywell and Rosenfeld v Bithell, 254 Mich App 300, 328 ; 657 NW2d 759 (2002). | 1 | 5 |
Tkachik v. Mandevillegreen2 sentences2020See Tkachik v Mandeville, 487 Mich 38, 45 ; 790 NW2d 260 (2010). -4- Under the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other. 2020See Tkachik v Mandeville, 487 Mich 38, 45 ; 790 NW2d 260 (2010). -4- Under the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other. | 1 | 3 |
Hodge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2025See Hodge, 499 Mich at 223-224 . | 1 | 1 |
Smith Trust and Estate v. Erickson Retirement Communitiesgreen2 sentences2024See also Smith Living Trust v Erickson Retirement Communities, 326 Mich App 366, 397 ; 928 NW2d 227 (2018) (discussing an unjust enrichment claim where the plaintiff previously agreed that no refund could be sought). 2024See also Smith Living Trust v Erickson Retirement Communities, 326 Mich App 366, 397 ; 928 NW2d 227 (2018) (discussing an unjust enrichment claim where the plaintiff previously agreed that no refund could be sought). | 1 | 1 |
Cordova Chemical Co. v. Department of Natural Resourcesgreen2 sentences2021See MCL 600.5807(9) (establishing a six-year period of limitations for general breach of contract claims). “[A] claim of breach of contract accrues when the promisor fails to perform under the contract.” Cordova Chem Co v Dept of Natural Resources, 212 Mich App 144, 153 ; 536 NW2d 860 (1995). 2021See MCL 600.5807(9) (establishing a six-year period of limitations for general breach of contract claims). “[A] claim of breach of contract accrues when the promisor fails to perform under the contract.” Cordova Chem Co v Dept of Natural Resources, 212 Mich App 144, 153 ; 536 NW2d 860 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Health Call of Detroit v. Atrium Home & Health Care Services, Incgreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc, 268 Mich App 83, 89-90 ; 706 NW2d 843 (2005) (stating the elements for tortious interference); M&D, Inc v WB McConkey, 231 Mich App 22, 27 ; 585 NW2d 33 (1998) (stating the elements for fraud); 3 The Golf companies’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the City taking possession of and using the Golf companies’ property, not over any claimed breach of the 2017 contract by the City. -6- Northland Wheels Roller Skating Ctr, Inc v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 213 Mich App 317, 328 ; 539 NW2d 774 (1995) (stating the elements for 2020See, e.g., Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc, 268 Mich App 83, 89-90 ; 706 NW2d 843 (2005) (stating the elements for tortious interference); M&D, Inc v WB McConkey, 231 Mich App 22, 27 ; 585 NW2d 33 (1998) (stating the elements for fraud); 3 The Golf companies’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the City taking possession of and using the Golf companies’ property, not over any claimed breach of the 2017 contract by the City. -6- Northland Wheels Roller Skating Ctr, Inc v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 213 Mich App 317, 328 ; 539 NW2d 774 (1995) (stating the elements for | 1 | 1 |
| Mudge v. MacOmb Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hardy v. Burroughsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Belle Isle Grill Corp. v. City of Detroit
green
2 sentences2013As the trial court correctly noted, an unjust-enrichment claim is available “only if there is no express contract covering the same subject matter.” Belle Isle Grill Corp v Detroit, 256 Mich App 463, 478 ; 666 NW2d 271 (2003). 2013As the trial court correctly noted, an unjust-enrichment claim is available “only if there is no express contract covering the same subject matter.” Belle Isle Grill Corp v Detroit, 256 Mich App 463, 478 ; 666 NW2d 271 (2003). | 4 | 2013–2018 |
McCreary v. Shields
green
2 sentences2025An unjust-enrichment claim can arise when a party “has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024An unjust-enrichment claim can arise when a party “has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another.” McCreary v Shields, 333 Mich 290, 294 ; 52 NW2d 853 (1952) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 2024–2025 |
Bellevue Ventures, Inc. v. Morang-Kelly Investment, Inc.
green
2 sentences2023Establishing an unjust-enrichment claim requires a showing of the “receipt of a benefit by the defendant from the plaintiff,” and “an inequity resulting to [the] plaintiff from [the] defendant’s retention of the benefit.” Bellevue Ventures, Inc v Morang-Kelly Investment, Inc, 302 Mich App 59, 64 ; 836 NW2d 898 (2013). 2023Establishing an unjust-enrichment claim requires a showing of the “receipt of a benefit by the defendant from the plaintiff,” and “an inequity resulting to [the] plaintiff from [the] defendant’s retention of the benefit.” Bellevue Ventures, Inc v Morang-Kelly Investment, Inc, 302 Mich App 59, 64 ; 836 NW2d 898 (2013). | 3 | 2020–2023 |
Michigan Educational Employees Mutual Insurance v. Morris
green
2 sentences2017Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc, 273 Mich App 187, 193 ; 729 NW2d 898 (2006). “[U]nder the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, [a] person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.” Michigan Ed Employees Mut Ins Co v Morris, 460 Mich 180, 198 ; 596 NW2d 142 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 2017Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc, 273 Mich App 187, 193 ; 729 NW2d 898 (2006). “[U]nder the equitable doctrine of unjust enrichment, [a] person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.” Michigan Ed Employees Mut Ins Co v Morris, 460 Mich 180, 198 ; 596 NW2d 142 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted). | 3 | 2007–2017 |
Barber v. Smh (Us), Inc
green
2 sentences2024Barber v SMH (US), Inc, 202 Mich App 366, 375 ; 509 NW2d 791 (1993). 2024Barber v SMH (US), Inc, 202 Mich App 366, 375 ; 509 NW2d 791 (1993). | 2 | 2016–2024 |
Local Emergency Financial Assistance Loan Board v. Blackwell
green
2 sentences2020Moreover, “an unjust-enrichment claim is available only if there is no express contract covering the same subject matter.” Local Emergency Fin Assistance Loan Bd v Blackwell, 299 Mich App 727, 734 ; 832 NW2d 401 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2020Moreover, “an unjust-enrichment claim is available only if there is no express contract covering the same subject matter.” Local Emergency Fin Assistance Loan Bd v Blackwell, 299 Mich App 727, 734 ; 832 NW2d 401 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2020–2021 |
Oosterwyk v. Milwaukee County
green
2 sentences2020See Sheehan v Suffolk Co, 67 NY2d 52, 59, 60 ; 490 NE2d 523 (1986) (“There is no constitutional prohibition against such a full forfeiture” of the “surplus.”); Ritter v Ross, 207 Wis 2d 476, 484 ; 558 NW2d 909 (App, 1996) (“We thus consider whether the Ritters had a property interest in the excess proceeds of the foreclosure sale . . . .”); Oosterwyk v Milwaukee Co, 31 Wis 2d 513, 517 ; 143 NW2d 497 (1966) (rejecting an unjust-enrichment claim for surplus proceeds). 58 Plaintiffs’ brief states, “The private property interest at issue in this case is privately generated and owned equity.” Plain 2020See Sheehan v Suffolk Co, 67 NY2d 52, 59, 60 ; 490 NE2d 523 (1986) (“There is no constitutional prohibition against such a full forfeiture” of the “surplus.”); Ritter v Ross, 207 Wis 2d 476, 484 ; 558 NW2d 909 (App, 1996) (“We thus consider whether the Ritters had a property interest in the excess proceeds of the foreclosure sale . . . .”); Oosterwyk v Milwaukee Co, 31 Wis 2d 513, 517 ; 143 NW2d 497 (1966) (rejecting an unjust-enrichment claim for surplus proceeds). 58 Plaintiffs’ brief states, “The private property interest at issue in this case is privately generated and owned equity.” Plain | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Dumas v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
green
2 sentences2015The elements of an unjust-enrichment claim are “(1) receipt of a benefit by the defendant from the plaintiff, (2) which benefit it is inequitable that the defendant retain.” Dumas v Auto Clus Ins Ass’n, 437 Mich 521, 546 ; 473 NW2d 652 (1991) (quotation marks and citation omitted). -8- Polytorx first notified U of M of the tort claims (common law misappropriation and unjust enrichment) in the August 28, 2013 first-amended complaint. 2015The elements of an unjust-enrichment claim are “(1) receipt of a benefit by the defendant from the plaintiff, (2) which benefit it is inequitable that the defendant retain.” Dumas v Auto Clus Ins Ass’n, 437 Mich 521, 546 ; 473 NW2d 652 (1991) (quotation marks and citation omitted). -8- Polytorx first notified U of M of the tort claims (common law misappropriation and unjust enrichment) in the August 28, 2013 first-amended complaint. | 2 | 2003–2015 |
Buell v. Orion State Bank
green
2 sentences2026Our Supreme Court has further explained that unjust enrichment -3- characterizes “the result or effect of a failure to make restitution of or for property or benefits received under such circumstances as to give rise to a legal or equitable obligation to account therefor.” Buell v Orion State Bank, 327 Mich 43, 56 ; 41 NW2d 472 (1950) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026Our Supreme Court has further explained that unjust enrichment -3- characterizes “the result or effect of a failure to make restitution of or for property or benefits received under such circumstances as to give rise to a legal or equitable obligation to account therefor.” Buell v Orion State Bank, 327 Mich 43, 56 ; 41 NW2d 472 (1950) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Quinney's Estate
green
1 sentence2025Therefore, Core may file a claim for unjust enrichment against those two defendants in district court, Quinney’s Estate, 287 Mich at 338-339 , which will have subject-matter jurisdiction to decide that claim on the merits. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Shawl v. SPENCE BROS., INC.
green
1 sentence2025Shawl, 280 Mich App at 238 . -6- contract claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v. Wayne County
green
2 sentences2025An unjust-enrichment claim is the “equitable counterpart of a legal claim for breach of contract,” AFT Mich v Michigan, 303 Mich App 651, 677 ; 846 NW2d 583 (2014), as such, the statute of limitations for a breach-of-contract claim applies to a claim for unjust enrichment, see Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v Wayne Co, 450 Mich 119 , 127 n 9; 537 NW2d 596 (1995); MCL 600.5815. 2025An unjust-enrichment claim is the “equitable counterpart of a legal claim for breach of contract,” AFT Mich v Michigan, 303 Mich App 651, 677 ; 846 NW2d 583 (2014), as such, the statute of limitations for a breach-of-contract claim applies to a claim for unjust enrichment, see Taxpayers Allied for Constitutional Taxation v Wayne Co, 450 Mich 119 , 127 n 9; 537 NW2d 596 (1995); MCL 600.5815. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Thomas v. Dutkavich
green
2 sentences2024However, “[w]hen a statute governs resolution of a particular issue, a court lacks the authority to invoke equity in contravention of the statute.” Thomas v Dutkavich, 290 Mich App 393 , 413 n 9; 803 NW2d 352 (2010). 2024However, “[w]hen a statute governs resolution of a particular issue, a court lacks the authority to invoke equity in contravention of the statute.” Thomas v Dutkavich, 290 Mich App 393 , 413 n 9; 803 NW2d 352 (2010). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Maiden v. Rozwood
green
1 sentence2022Maiden, 461 Mich at 119-120 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In re Stillwell Trust
green
2 sentences2021Thus, the trial court erred by concluding that the payments O’Bey made to Leonard were gratuitous based on a meretricious relationship. 3 “Although cases decided before November 1, 1990, are not binding precedent, MCR 7.215(J)(1), they nevertheless can be considered persuasive authority.” In re Stillwell Trust, 299 Mich App 289 , 299 n 1; 829 NW2d 353 (2012) (citation omitted). -6- As for whether the elements of an unjust enrichment claim have been met, disputes of material fact prevent summary disposition on this issue. 2021Thus, the trial court erred by concluding that the payments O’Bey made to Leonard were gratuitous based on a meretricious relationship. 3 “Although cases decided before November 1, 1990, are not binding precedent, MCR 7.215(J)(1), they nevertheless can be considered persuasive authority.” In re Stillwell Trust, 299 Mich App 289 , 299 n 1; 829 NW2d 353 (2012) (citation omitted). -6- As for whether the elements of an unjust enrichment claim have been met, disputes of material fact prevent summary disposition on this issue. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Northland Wheels Roller Skating Center, Inc v. Detroit Free Press, Inc
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc, 268 Mich App 83, 89-90 ; 706 NW2d 843 (2005) (stating the elements for tortious interference); M&D, Inc v WB McConkey, 231 Mich App 22, 27 ; 585 NW2d 33 (1998) (stating the elements for fraud); 3 The Golf companies’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the City taking possession of and using the Golf companies’ property, not over any claimed breach of the 2017 contract by the City. -6- Northland Wheels Roller Skating Ctr, Inc v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 213 Mich App 317, 328 ; 539 NW2d 774 (1995) (stating the elements for 2020See, e.g., Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc, 268 Mich App 83, 89-90 ; 706 NW2d 843 (2005) (stating the elements for tortious interference); M&D, Inc v WB McConkey, 231 Mich App 22, 27 ; 585 NW2d 33 (1998) (stating the elements for fraud); 3 The Golf companies’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the City taking possession of and using the Golf companies’ property, not over any claimed breach of the 2017 contract by the City. -6- Northland Wheels Roller Skating Ctr, Inc v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 213 Mich App 317, 328 ; 539 NW2d 774 (1995) (stating the elements for | 1 | 2020–2020 |
M&D, INC v. McCONKEY
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc, 268 Mich App 83, 89-90 ; 706 NW2d 843 (2005) (stating the elements for tortious interference); M&D, Inc v WB McConkey, 231 Mich App 22, 27 ; 585 NW2d 33 (1998) (stating the elements for fraud); 3 The Golf companies’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the City taking possession of and using the Golf companies’ property, not over any claimed breach of the 2017 contract by the City. -6- Northland Wheels Roller Skating Ctr, Inc v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 213 Mich App 317, 328 ; 539 NW2d 774 (1995) (stating the elements for 2020See, e.g., Health Call of Detroit v Atrium Home & Health Care Servs, Inc, 268 Mich App 83, 89-90 ; 706 NW2d 843 (2005) (stating the elements for tortious interference); M&D, Inc v WB McConkey, 231 Mich App 22, 27 ; 585 NW2d 33 (1998) (stating the elements for fraud); 3 The Golf companies’ unjust enrichment claim is based on the City taking possession of and using the Golf companies’ property, not over any claimed breach of the 2017 contract by the City. -6- Northland Wheels Roller Skating Ctr, Inc v Detroit Free Press, Inc, 213 Mich App 317, 328 ; 539 NW2d 774 (1995) (stating the elements for | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Genesee County Drain Commissioner v. Genesee County
green
2 sentences2019On appeal, the Court of Appeals, SAWYER, P.J., and SERVITTO and RIORDAN, JJ., affirmed the denial, reasoning that the GTLA did not apply because the unjust- enrichment claim ultimately involved contract liability, not tort liability. 321 Mich App 74 (2017). 2019The Court stated that under the doctrine of unjust enrichment, “ ‘the law will imply a contract to prevent unjust enrichment only if the defendant has been unjustly or inequitably enriched at the plaintiff’s expense.’ ” Id. at 78 , quoting Morris Pumps v Centerline Piping, Inc, 273 Mich App 187, 195 ; 729 NW2d 898 (2006). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Borg-Warner Acceptance Corp. v. Department of State green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| B & M DIE CO. v. Ford Motor Co. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Adams v. Adams green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| in Re Bradley Estate green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Thomas Industries, Inc v. C & L Electric, Inc green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Denhof v. Challa green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Reynolds v. College Park Corp. green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Lorimer v. Julius Knack Coal Co. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Reed v. Reed green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Caldwell v. Fox green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Wettlaufer v. Ames green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Moll v. County of Wayne green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| City of Detroit v. City of Highland Park green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Cascaden v. Magryta green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Hoyt v. Paw Paw Grape Juice Co. green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| City of Lincoln Park v. Lincoln Park Police Officers Ass'n green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| City of Ingleside v. Stewart green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Buczkowski v. McKay green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| Wisner v. Wisner green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.