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 1 courts 1985–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson v. American Can Co., Inc.green1 sentence1986Jackson v American Can Co, Inc, 485 F Supp 370, 375 (WD Mich, 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Dumas v. Helmgreen2 sentences1985See and compare Dumas v Helm, 15 Mich App 148, 151-152 ; 166 NW2d 306 (1968), lv den 382 Mich 759 (1969), where this Court held that, notwithstanding a plaintiff’s investment in property, a defendant has a right to declare the total unpaid balance due if the contract contains an acceleration clause because a court of equity can neither enlarge nor abridge legal rights created by statute. 1985See and compare Dumas v Helm, 15 Mich App 148, 151-152 ; 166 NW2d 306 (1968), lv den 382 Mich 759 (1969), where this Court held that, notwithstanding a plaintiff’s investment in property, a defendant has a right to declare the total unpaid balance due if the contract contains an acceleration clause because a court of equity can neither enlarge nor abridge legal rights created by statute. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paul v. Bogle
green
2 sentences2019Plaintiffs asserted that “[b]y interfering with Plaintiffs’ performance, Defendant is in anticipatory breach of any contract between Defendant and either Plaintiff.” “Under the doctrine of anticipatory breach, if a party to a contract, prior to the time of performance, unequivocally declares the intent not to perform, the innocent party has the option to either sue immediately for the breach of contract or wait until the time of performance.” Paul v Bogle, 193 Mich App 479, 493 ; 484 NW2d 728 (1992) (quotation marks omitted). 2019Plaintiffs asserted that “[b]y interfering with Plaintiffs’ performance, Defendant is in anticipatory breach of any contract between Defendant and either Plaintiff.” “Under the doctrine of anticipatory breach, if a party to a contract, prior to the time of performance, unequivocally declares the intent not to perform, the innocent party has the option to either sue immediately for the breach of contract or wait until the time of performance.” Paul v Bogle, 193 Mich App 479, 493 ; 484 NW2d 728 (1992) (quotation marks omitted). | 5 | 2014–2019 |
Brauer v. Hobbs
green
2 sentences2014“Under the doctrine of anticipatory breach, if a party to a contract, prior to the time of performance, unequivocally declares the intent not to perform, the innocent party has the option to either sue immediately for the breach of contract or wait until the time of performance.” Paul v Bogle, 193 Mich App 479, 493 ; 484 NW2d 728 (1992), citing Brauer v Hobbs, 151 Mich App 769, 776 ; 391 NW2d 482 (1986). 2014“Under the doctrine of anticipatory breach, if a party to a contract, prior to the time of performance, unequivocally declares the intent not to perform, the innocent party has the option to either sue immediately for the breach of contract or wait until the time of performance.” Paul v Bogle, 193 Mich App 479, 493 ; 484 NW2d 728 (1992), citing Brauer v Hobbs, 151 Mich App 769, 776 ; 391 NW2d 482 (1986). | 2 | 1992–2014 |
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.