determination whether the law-of-the-case doctrine (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

determination whether the law-of-the-case doctrine in Michigan

8 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2011–2023 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.

Followed or applied (0)

CaseFollowedCited
No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan.

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
Lenawee County v. Wagley green
michctapp · 2013
2 sentences

2023A. LEGAL BACKGROUND “[T]his Court reviews de novo the determination whether the law-of-the-case doctrine applies and to what extent it applies.” Lenawee Co v Wagley, 301 Mich App 134, 149 ; 836 NW2d 193 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023A. LEGAL BACKGROUND “[T]his Court reviews de novo the determination whether the law-of-the-case doctrine applies and to what extent it applies.” Lenawee Co v Wagley, 301 Mich App 134, 149 ; 836 NW2d 193 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

42018–2023
Augustine v. Allstate Insurance green
michctapp · 2011
2 sentences

2017LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE Plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred in assuming that the law of the case doctrine obligated it to follow Judge Drain’s prior opinion, and in applying the doctrine to dismiss Counts II through V without addressing them. “[T]his Court reviews de novo the determination whether the law-of-the-case doctrine applies and to what extent it applies.” Augustine v Allstate Ins Co (After Remand), 292 Mich App 408, 424 ; 807 NW2d 77 (2011).

2017LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE Plaintiffs first contend that the trial court erred in assuming that the law of the case doctrine obligated it to follow Judge Drain’s prior opinion, and in applying the doctrine to dismiss Counts II through V without addressing them. “[T]his Court reviews de novo the determination whether the law-of-the-case doctrine applies and to what extent it applies.” Augustine v Allstate Ins Co (After Remand), 292 Mich App 408, 424 ; 807 NW2d 77 (2011).

32013–2017
People v. Wade green
mich · 2010
1 sentence

2013Judicial notice is discretionary, MRE 201(c), and we review for an abuse of that discretion a trial court’s decision whether to take judicial notice, Freed v Salas, 286 Mich App 300, 341 ; 780 NW2d 844 (2009).

12013–2013
Freed v. Salas green
michctapp · 2009
1 sentence

2013Judicial notice is discretionary, MRE 201(c), and we review for an abuse of that discretion a trial court’s decision whether to take judicial notice, Freed v Salas, 286 Mich App 300, 341 ; 780 NW2d 844 (2009).

12013–2013
Kasben v. Hoffman green
michctapp · 2008
2 sentences

2011Kasben v Hoffman, 278 Mich App 466, 470 ; 751 NW2d 520 (2008).

2011Kasben v Hoffman, 278 Mich App 466, 470 ; 751 NW2d 520 (2008).

12011–2011

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check