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 1970–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wilson v. Stilwillgreen2 sentences1982Wilson v Stilwill, 411 Mich 587, 607, fn 5 ; 309 NW2d 898 (1981), Gadde v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 377 Mich 117 ; 139 NW2d 722 (1966). 1982Wilson v Stilwill, 411 Mich 587, 607, fn 5 ; 309 NW2d 898 (1981), Gadde v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 377 Mich 117 ; 139 NW2d 722 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
Fireman's Fund Insurance Co. v. Sand Lake Lounge, Inc.green2 sentences1976We think this approach is more satisfactory, and more easily applied, than the pursuit of the concepts of waiver and estoppel in each of the many factual patterns which may arise." The Supreme Court of Alaska, in Fireman's Fund Insurance Co v Sand Lake Lounge, Inc, 514 P2d 223, 226-227 (Alas, 1973), reached a like result by finding the policy limitation unconscionable. 1976We think this approach is more satisfactory, and more easily applied, than the pursuit of the concepts of waiver and estoppel in each of the many factual patterns which may arise.” The Supreme Court of Alaska, in Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co v Sand Lake Lounge, Inc, 514 P2d 223, 226-227 (Alas, 1973), reached a like result by finding the policy limitation unconscionable. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.green2 sentences1970“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), 333 US 364, 395 ( 68 S Ct 525 , 92 L Ed 746 ), reh den 333 US 869 ( 68 S Ct 788 , 92 L Ed 1147 ). 1970“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), 333 US 364, 395 ( 68 S Ct 525 , 92 L Ed 746 ), reh den 333 US 869 ( 68 S Ct 788 , 92 L Ed 1147 ). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Carter
green
2 sentences2016The Sardy Court goes on to acknowledge that the waiver analysis is “somewhat inconsistent” with more recent Supreme Court precedent regarding the concepts of waiver and forfeiture, citing the precedentially binding cases of Carter, 462 Mich 206 )(noting the crucial distinction between waiver and forfeiture), and People v Putman, 309 Mich App 240, 243 ; 870 -3- NW2d 593 (2015)(employing a forfeiture/plain error analysis to an oath given to a trial witness). 2016The Sardy Court goes on to acknowledge that the waiver analysis is “somewhat inconsistent” with more recent Supreme Court precedent regarding the concepts of waiver and forfeiture, citing the precedentially binding cases of Carter, 462 Mich 206 )(noting the crucial distinction between waiver and forfeiture), and People v Putman, 309 Mich App 240, 243 ; 870 -3- NW2d 593 (2015)(employing a forfeiture/plain error analysis to an oath given to a trial witness). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Putman
green
2 sentences2016The Sardy Court goes on to acknowledge that the waiver analysis is “somewhat inconsistent” with more recent Supreme Court precedent regarding the concepts of waiver and forfeiture, citing the precedentially binding cases of Carter, 462 Mich 206 )(noting the crucial distinction between waiver and forfeiture), and People v Putman, 309 Mich App 240, 243 ; 870 -3- NW2d 593 (2015)(employing a forfeiture/plain error analysis to an oath given to a trial witness). 2016The Sardy Court goes on to acknowledge that the waiver analysis is “somewhat inconsistent” with more recent Supreme Court precedent regarding the concepts of waiver and forfeiture, citing the precedentially binding cases of Carter, 462 Mich 206 )(noting the crucial distinction between waiver and forfeiture), and People v Putman, 309 Mich App 240, 243 ; 870 -3- NW2d 593 (2015)(employing a forfeiture/plain error analysis to an oath given to a trial witness). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Cain
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 117 n 4. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Bayati v. Bayati
green
1 sentence2016Arbitration is a matter of contract and, as such, arbitration agreements “must be enforced according to their terms to effectuate the intentions of the parties.” Bayati v Bayati, 264 Mich -2- App 595, 599; 691 NW2d 812 (2004). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Tom Thomas Organization, Inc. v. Reliance Insurance
green
1 sentence1982Peloso, supra. See Thomas, supra, 396 Mich 594 , 596. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Gadde v. Michigan Consolidated Gas Co.
green
2 sentences1982Wilson v Stilwill, 411 Mich 587, 607, fn 5 ; 309 NW2d 898 (1981), Gadde v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 377 Mich 117 ; 139 NW2d 722 (1966). 1982Wilson v Stilwill, 411 Mich 587, 607, fn 5 ; 309 NW2d 898 (1981), Gadde v Michigan Consolidated Gas Co, 377 Mich 117 ; 139 NW2d 722 (1966). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Norris & Hirshberg, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission
green
2 sentences1970“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), 333 US 364, 395 ( 68 S Ct 525 , 92 L Ed 746 ), reh den 333 US 869 ( 68 S Ct 788 , 92 L Ed 1147 ). 1970"A finding is `clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), 333 US 364, 395 ( 68 S Ct 525 , 92 L Ed 746 ), reh den 333 US 869 ( 68 S Ct 788 , 92 L Ed 1147 ). *414 Having reviewed the record and having given due regard to the trial judge's special opportunity to judge credibility, we are convinced that in this case a mistake was made, that this defendant, acquitted of statutory rape, should not have b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Howell v. Ragen
green
2 sentences1970“A finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), 333 US 364, 395 ( 68 S Ct 525 , 92 L Ed 746 ), reh den 333 US 869 ( 68 S Ct 788 , 92 L Ed 1147 ). 1970"A finding is `clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), 333 US 364, 395 ( 68 S Ct 525 , 92 L Ed 746 ), reh den 333 US 869 ( 68 S Ct 788 , 92 L Ed 1147 ). *414 Having reviewed the record and having given due regard to the trial judge's special opportunity to judge credibility, we are convinced that in this case a mistake was made, that this defendant, acquitted of statutory rape, should not have b | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.