impossibility doctrine (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

impossibility doctrine in Michigan

8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2024 4 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 (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Frank's Nursery Sales, Inc. v. American National Insurancegreen
mied · 1974 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2019–2023
2 sentences

2023See Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc v American Nat’l Ins Co, 388 F Supp 76, 82 (ED Mich, 1974).

2019He is unable to prove the “suit within a suit” requirement, however.7 Although 6 In addition, we note that as a general rule the doctrine of impossibility “will not serve to discharge a party who has assumed the risk that a given event will be rendered impossible.” Frank’s Nursery Sales, Inc v American Nat’l Ins Co, 388 F Supp 76, 82 (1974).

33
Roberts v. Farmers Insurance Exchangegreen
michctapp · 2007 · cited in 3 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2022–2024
2 sentences

2024See Roberts, 275 Mich App at 73 (“A promisor’s liability may be extinguished in the event his or her contractual promise becomes objectively impossible to perform.”) (emphasis added.) Thus, even though plaintiff could not use the premises as a health club and fitness facility for a period of time, because there was no evidence proving it was impossible for plaintiff to pay rent, plaintiff did not experience an impossibility of performance for purposes of the doctrine and plaintiff is not excused from its obligation to pay rent.

2023See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 261, comment d; Roberts, 275 Mich App at 74 . -9- whether some event has rendered a party’s performance extreme or unreasonable, it is simply untrue that this in turn renders the fact that a party was able to perform under the contract “irrelevant.” Fitness’s entire impossibility argument is not based on record evidence but on Fitness’s unsupported claims to that effect—Fitness asserts that requiring it to pay rent under the Leases while the shutdown orders were in effect would work an extreme or unreasonable loss upon Fitness because Fitness was not ear

23
Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc. v. City of Pontiacgreen
michctapp · 2003 · cited in 2 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2022–2023
2 sentences

2023IMPOSSIBILITY The doctrine of impossibility is related to the doctrine of frustration of purpose—both are “excuses for nonperformance of contractual obligations and are governed by similar principles.” Liggett, 260 Mich App at 133 .

2023See id. at 134 .

12
United States v. Thomasgreen
cma · 1962 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001L .R. 1029, 1029-1030 (1983) ("[b]ecause ordinary English cannot adequately distinguish among the various kinds of impossible attempts, courts and commentators have frequently misclassified certain types of cases"); United States v. Thomas, 13 USCMA 278, 283 , 32 C.M.R. 278, 283 , 1962 WL 4490 (1962) ("[w]hat is abundantly clear ... is that it is most difficult to classify any particular state of facts as positively coming within one of these categories to the exclusion of the other"); State v. Moretti, 52 N.J. 182, 189 , 244 A.2d 499 (1968) ("[o]ur examination of [authorities discussing the d

2001L .R. 1029, 1029-1030 (1983) ("[b]ecause ordinary English cannot adequately distinguish among the various kinds of impossible attempts, courts and commentators have frequently misclassified certain types of cases"); United States v. Thomas, 13 USCMA 278, 283 , 32 C.M.R. 278, 283 , 1962 WL 4490 (1962) ("[w]hat is abundantly clear ... is that it is most difficult to classify any particular state of facts as positively coming within one of these categories to the exclusion of the other"); State v. Moretti, 52 N.J. 182, 189 , 244 A.2d 499 (1968) ("[o]ur examination of [authorities discussing the d

11
United States v. Kai-Lo Hsu, A/K/A James Hsu. United States of America v. Chester S. Ho. United States of Americagreen
ca3 · 1998 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
1 sentence

2001It is notable that "the great majority of jurisdictions have now recognized that legal and factual impossibility are `logically indistinguishable' ... and have abolished impossibility as a defense." United States v. Hsu, 155 F.3d 189, 199 (C.A.3, 1998). [12] For example, several states have adopted statutory provisions similar to Model Penal Code § 5.01(1), [13] which provides: A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he: (a) purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the att

11

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 (9)

CaseCitedYears
Michael Long v. Liquor Control Commission green
michctapp · 2017
2 sentences

2023Although Fisher is not binding because it was decided before 1990, we nevertheless find it persuasive.4 Long v Liquor Control Comm’n, 322 Mich App 60 , 74 n 5; 910 NW2d 674 (2017).

2023Although Fisher is not binding because it was decided before 1990, we nevertheless find it persuasive.4 Long v Liquor Control Comm’n, 322 Mich App 60 , 74 n 5; 910 NW2d 674 (2017).

12023–2023
People v. Tinskey green
mich · 1975
2 sentences

2016In People v Tinskey, 394 Mich 108 ; 228 NW2d 782 (1975), this Court also *123 briefly discussed the doctrine of impossibility as a defense to a charge of attempt.

2016In People v Tinskey, 394 Mich 108 ; 228 NW2d 782 (1975), this Court also *123 briefly discussed the doctrine of impossibility as a defense to a charge of attempt.

12016–2016
City of Port Huron v. Jenkinson green
mich · 1889
1 sentence

2012If it had been shown that the defendant in Jenkinson could have used the “support from his 24 Id. at 419 . 25 Id. at 420 (emphasis added). 11 charitable neighbors”26 to build a sidewalk, he would not have satisfied an impossibility defense.

12012–2012
People v. Adams neutral
michctapp · 2004
1 sentence

2012Unlike the dissent, which would undermine the legislative choices that are reflected in the statutory 1 People v Adams, 262 Mich App 89 ; 683 NW2d 729 (2004). 2 child support framework, our view of parental responsibility and obligation leads us to recognize the impossibility defense.

12012–2012
Epp v. State green
nev · 1991
2 sentences

2012See Painter, 140 Va 459; see also Epp v State, 107 Nev 510, 514; 814 P2d 1011 (1991) (stating, in language strikingly similar to that used in Jenkinson, “[o]bviously, ‘the law does not contemplate punishing a person for failing to do a thing which he cannot do’”) (citation omitted). 101 See Ariz Rev Stat Ann 25-511B (“It is an affirmative defense to a charge of [failure to provide for one’s child] that the defendant . . . was unable to furnish reasonable support.”); Colo Rev Stat 14-6-101 (“It shall be an affirmative defense . . . to a prosecution [for felony nonsupport] that owing to physical

2012It is also apparent that at least two states referred to in the footnote actually recognize what is more accurately characterized as an impossibility defense like the one we recognize today See Painter , 140 Va 459; see also Epp v State, 107 Nev 510, 514; 814 P2d 1011 (1991) (stating, in language strikingly similar to that used in Jenkinson, “[o]bviously, ‘the law does not contemplate punishing a person for failing to do a thing which he cannot do’ ”) (citation omitted).

12012–2012
Donajkowski v. Alpena Power Co. green
mich · 1999
1 sentence

2012For example, the footnote cites a 1924 case from Virginia in which the court indeed referred to the defendant’s “absolute inability” to contribute, but then concluded that it was clearly established “that his mental and physical condition has made it impossible for him to support his wife and children ever since his first conviction . . . .”99 In our view, this sounds remarkably like the impossibility defense we recognize here.100 Indeed, contrary that the doctrine is disfavored. “[S]ound principles of statutory construction require that Michigan courts determine the Legislature’s intent from

12012–2012
Bearden v. Georgia green
scotus · 1983
1 sentence

2012To be entitled to a jury instruction on this affirmative defense,77 a defendant must present prima facie evidence from which the finder of fact could conclude that it was genuinely impossible for the defendant to pay the support, as described in part III(D). 78 If, however, no reasonable trier of fact could conclude from the facts adduced that payment of the support was truly impossible, then 76 Bearden, 461 US at 668 . 77 An affirmative defense admits the crime but seeks to excuse or justify its commission.

12012–2012
People v. Adams green
michctapp · 2004
1 sentence

2012Unlike the dissent, which would undermine the legislative choices that are reflected in the statutory 1 People v Adams, 262 Mich App 89 ; 683 NW2d 729 (2004). 2 child support framework, our view of parental responsibility and obligation leads us to recognize the impossibility defense.

12012–2012
State v. MORETTI green
nj · 1968
2 sentences

2001L .R. 1029, 1029-1030 (1983) ("[b]ecause ordinary English cannot adequately distinguish among the various kinds of impossible attempts, courts and commentators have frequently misclassified certain types of cases"); United States v. Thomas, 13 USCMA 278, 283 , 32 C.M.R. 278, 283 , 1962 WL 4490 (1962) ("[w]hat is abundantly clear ... is that it is most difficult to classify any particular state of facts as positively coming within one of these categories to the exclusion of the other"); State v. Moretti, 52 N.J. 182, 189 , 244 A.2d 499 (1968) ("[o]ur examination of [authorities discussing the d

2001L .R. 1029, 1029-1030 (1983) ("[b]ecause ordinary English cannot adequately distinguish among the various kinds of impossible attempts, courts and commentators have frequently misclassified certain types of cases"); United States v. Thomas, 13 USCMA 278, 283 , 32 C.M.R. 278, 283 , 1962 WL 4490 (1962) ("[w]hat is abundantly clear ... is that it is most difficult to classify any particular state of facts as positively coming within one of these categories to the exclusion of the other"); State v. Moretti, 52 N.J. 182, 189 , 244 A.2d 499 (1968) ("[o]ur examination of [authorities discussing the d

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

CA 37 (1955–2026) NY 34 (1982–2025) IA 26 (1980–2025) TX 24 (1992–2026) ID 15 (1985–2024) OH 11 (1993–2026) MI 8 (2001–2024) IN 7 (1956–2023) VA 7 (1989–2024) UT 7 (1994–2016) MA 7 (1969–2023) NJ 5 (1950–2022) FL 5 (2007–2017) WA 5 (2010–2016) DE 4 (1991–2025) CT 4 (1989–2022) MO 4 (1962–2022) NM 4 (1983–2009) IL 4 (1973–2023) MT 3 (1979–2022) WI 3 (1909–2024) AL 3 (1989–1994) PA 3 (1980–1983) WV 2 (2004–2013) MN 2 (1988–2026) GA 2 (2015–2022) NH 2 (1979–2024) MS 2 (1999–2002) NC 2 (1993–2022) ND 2 (2010–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check