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.
8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. McIntiregreen2 sentences2010See, e.g., People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 152-160 ; 599 NW2d 102 (1999); People v McIntire, 232 Mich App 71, 122-127 ; 591 NW2d 231 (1998). 2003However, our Supreme Court has recently refused to apply the absurd result rule of statutory construction, describing it as “ ‘nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking.’ ” People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 166 ; 599 NW2d 102 (1999), quoting Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997), p 21, while reproducing and adopting the partial dissenting opinion of Young, P.J., in People v McIntire, 232 Mich App 71, 122, n 2 ; 591 NW2d 231 (1998). | 1 | 3 |
Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'ngreen2 sentences2010Detroit Int’l Bridge Co v Commodities Export Co, 279 Mich App 662, 674-675 ; 760 NW2d 565 (2008), decided just three weeks after Toaz , concluded that a majority of the Supreme Court (in separate opinions) in Cameron v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 476 Mich 55 ; 718 NW2d 784 (2006), had rejected McIntire’s rejection of the absurd result doctrine. 2010Detroit Int’l Bridge Co v Commodities Export Co, 279 Mich App 662, 674-675 ; 760 NW2d 565 (2008), decided just three weeks after Toaz , concluded that a majority of the Supreme Court (in separate opinions) in Cameron v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 476 Mich 55 ; 718 NW2d 784 (2006), had rejected McIntire’s rejection of the absurd result doctrine. | 1 | 2 |
People v. McIntiregreen2 sentences2003However, our Supreme Court has recently refused to apply the absurd result rule of statutory construction, describing it as “ ‘nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking.’ ” People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 166 ; 599 NW2d 102 (1999), quoting Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997), p 21, while reproducing and adopting the partial dissenting opinion of Young, P.J., in People v McIntire, 232 Mich App 71, 122, n 2 ; 591 NW2d 231 (1998). 2003However, our Supreme Court has recently refused to apply the absurd result rule of statutory construction, describing it as “ ‘nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking.’ ” People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 166 ; 599 NW2d 102 (1999), quoting Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997), p 21, while reproducing and adopting the partial dissenting opinion of Young, P.J., in People v McIntire, 232 Mich App 71, 122, n 2 ; 591 NW2d 231 (1998). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Bulger
green
2 sentences2010See, e.g., People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 152-160 ; 599 NW2d 102 (1999); People v McIntire, 232 Mich App 71, 122-127 ; 591 NW2d 231 (1998). 2003However, our Supreme Court has recently refused to apply the absurd result rule of statutory construction, describing it as “ ‘nothing but an invitation to judicial lawmaking.’ ” People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 166 ; 599 NW2d 102 (1999), quoting Scalia, A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1997), p 21, while reproducing and adopting the partial dissenting opinion of Young, P.J., in People v McIntire, 232 Mich App 71, 122, n 2 ; 591 NW2d 231 (1998). | 3 | 2002–2010 |
Gauthier v. Alpena County Prosecutor
green
2 sentences2017The absurd result rule applies only when statutes are ambiguous, Gauthier v Alpena Co Prosecutor, 267 Mich App 167, 174 ; 703 NW2d 818 (2005), and, as we have determined, the statutory definition of “compensation” is unambiguous. 2017The absurd result rule applies only when statutes are ambiguous, Gauthier v Alpena Co Prosecutor, 267 Mich App 167, 174 ; 703 NW2d 818 (2005), and, as we have determined, the statutory definition of “compensation” is unambiguous. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Detroit International Bridge Co. v. Commodities Export Co.
green
2 sentences2010Detroit Int’l Bridge Co v Commodities Export Co, 279 Mich App 662, 674-675 ; 760 NW2d 565 (2008), decided just three weeks after Toaz , concluded that a majority of the Supreme Court (in separate opinions) in Cameron v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 476 Mich 55 ; 718 NW2d 784 (2006), had rejected McIntire’s rejection of the absurd result doctrine. 2010Detroit Int’l Bridge Co v Commodities Export Co, 279 Mich App 662, 674-675 ; 760 NW2d 565 (2008), decided just three weeks after Toaz , concluded that a majority of the Supreme Court (in separate opinions) in Cameron v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 476 Mich 55 ; 718 NW2d 784 (2006), had rejected McIntire’s rejection of the absurd result doctrine. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Houghton Lake Area Tourism & Convention Bureau v. Wood
green
1 sentence2003This Court must determine the reasonable construction that best effects the Legislature’s intent. [Id. at 134-135 (citations omitted).] Further, “application of the absurd result rule is appropriate only when attempting to determine the Legislature’s intent regarding an ambiguous statute; it cannot defeat a statute’s clear meaning.” Id. at 143 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gilbert v. Second Injury Fund
green
2 sentences2003However, in Gilbert v Second Injury Fund, 463 Mich 866, 867 ; 616 NW2d 161 (2000), the Supreme Court clarified that application of the absurd result rule is appropriate only when attempting to determine the Legislature’s intent regarding an ambiguous statute; it cannot defeat a statute’s clear meaning. 2003However, in Gilbert v Second Injury Fund, 463 Mich 866, 867 ; 616 NW2d 161 (2000), the Supreme Court clarified that application of the absurd result rule is appropriate only when attempting to determine the Legislature’s intent regarding an ambiguous statute; it cannot defeat a statute’s clear meaning. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Forge v. Smith
green
2 sentences2003For example, in regard to ratification, our Supreme Court has held that “[cjontracts conveying an interest in land made by an agent having no written authority are invalid under the statute of frauds unless ratified by the principal.” Forge v Smith, 458 Mich 198, 208-209 ; 580 NW2d 876 (1998), citing Detroit P & N R Co v Hartz, 147 Mich 354, 364 ; 110 NW 1089 (1907). 2003For example, in regard to ratification, our Supreme Court has held that “[cjontracts conveying an interest in land made by an agent having no written authority are invalid under the statute of frauds unless ratified by the principal.” Forge v Smith, 458 Mich 198, 208-209 ; 580 NW2d 876 (1998), citing Detroit P & N R Co v Hartz, 147 Mich 354, 364 ; 110 NW 1089 (1907). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Detroit, Plymouth & Northville Railway Co. v. Hartz
neutral
2 sentences2003For example, in regard to ratification, our Supreme Court has held that “[cjontracts conveying an interest in land made by an agent having no written authority are invalid under the statute of frauds unless ratified by the principal.” Forge v Smith, 458 Mich 198, 208-209 ; 580 NW2d 876 (1998), citing Detroit P & N R Co v Hartz, 147 Mich 354, 364 ; 110 NW 1089 (1907). 2003For example, in regard to ratification, our Supreme Court has held that “[cjontracts conveying an interest in land made by an agent having no written authority are invalid under the statute of frauds unless ratified by the principal.” Forge v Smith, 458 Mich 198, 208-209 ; 580 NW2d 876 (1998), citing Detroit P & N R Co v Hartz, 147 Mich 354, 364 ; 110 NW 1089 (1907). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Gilbert v. Second Injury Fund
green
2 sentences2002People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 155-157 , nn 2 & 3; 599 NW2d 102 (1999); Gilbert v Second Injury Fund (On Remand), 244 Mich App 326, 331-333 ; 625 NW2d 116 (2001). 2002People v McIntire, 461 Mich 147, 155-157 , nn 2 & 3; 599 NW2d 102 (1999); Gilbert v Second Injury Fund (On Remand), 244 Mich App 326, 331-333 ; 625 NW2d 116 (2001). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.