inclusion standard (Michigan) · Go Syfert
← Michigan issues

inclusion standard in Michigan

8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2023 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Kreiner v. Fischerred
mich · 2004 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
2 sentences

2010Nevertheless, the majority rejects Kreiner’s “extra-textual” factors on the basis that they all “include a temporal component,” reiterating the argument made by the Kreiner dissent that “the statute does not create an express temporal requirement as to how long an impairment must last.” Ante at __, see also Kreiner, 471 Mich at 147 (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting) (“[T]he serious impairment of body function threshold does not suggest any sort of temporal limitation. . . .

2010Nevertheless, the majority rejects Kreiner’s “extra-textual” factors on the basis that they all “include a temporal component,” reiterating the argument made by the Kreiner dissent that “the statute does not create an express temporal requirement as to how long an impairment must last. . . .” Ante at 203, 208; see also Kreiner, 471 Mich at 147 (CAVANAGH, J., dissenting) (“[T]he serious impairment of body function threshold does not suggest any sort of temporal limitation. . . .

11
Parker Drilling Co. v. Metlakatla Indian Communitygreen
akd · 1978 · cited in 1 Michigan opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998
1 sentence

1998Parker Drilling Co v Metlakatla Indian Community, 451 F Supp 1127, 1136 (D Alas, 1978); S Unique, Ltd v Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 138 Ariz 378, 385; 674 P2d 1376 (Ariz App, 1983).

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
Rohlman v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance green
mich · 1993
2 sentences

2022In its complaint, Meemic cited the standard mortgage clause and claimed it “is entitled to be subrogated to the extent of its payments to all rights that the mortgagee has under the mortgage on the property and has a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and all securities.” This allegation, which was not pleaded in the alternative, should give us pause. 2 The inclusion of a standard mortgage clause is mandated by MCL 500.2833(1)(j) for fire insurance policies, and “it is to be presumed that the parties contracted with the intention of executing a policy satisfying the statutory require

2022In its complaint, Meemic cited the standard mortgage clause and claimed it “is entitled to be subrogated to the extent of its payments to all rights that the mortgagee has under the mortgage on the property and has a full assignment and transfer of the mortgage and all securities.” This allegation, which was not pleaded in the alternative, should give us pause. 2 The inclusion of a standard mortgage clause is mandated by MCL 500.2833(1)(j) for fire insurance policies, and “it is to be presumed that the parties contracted with the intention of executing a policy satisfying the statutory require

32022–2022
People v. Lockett green
michctapp · 2012
1 sentence

2023Relying on People v Lockett, 295 Mich App 165, 188 ; 814 NW2d 295 (2012), the trial court instructed the jury that penetration meant sexual intercourse, cunnilingus or any other intrusion, however slight, of any part of any person’s body or any object into the genital or anal openings, and includes any intrusion, however slight, into the vagina or labia majora. [Emphasis added.] The trial court gave this added instruction about the vagina and labia majora, per the prosecution’s request, to provide greater detail on what constituted an intrusion into the “genital opening.” Swider offers no lega

12023–2023
S. Unique, Ltd. v. Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community green
arizctapp · 1983
1 sentence

1998Parker Drilling Co v Metlakatla Indian Community, 451 F Supp 1127, 1136 (D Alas, 1978); S Unique, Ltd v Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, 138 Ariz 378, 385; 674 P2d 1376 (Ariz App, 1983).

11998–1998
People v. Butler green
michctapp · 1972
1 sentence

1991We find the position espoused in Butler, supra, that the inclusion of the waiver of appeal in a plea agreement constitutes inherent coercion against the exercise of the right to appeal is at odds with the widely accepted underpinnings of the plea bargaining system.

11991–1991
Local 1277, Metropolitan Council No. 23 v. City of Center Line neutral
michctapp · 1979
2 sentences

1982Local 1277, Metropolitan Council No 23, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Center Line, 91 Mich App 337, 342 ; 283 NW2d 741 (1979).

1982Local 1277, Metropolitan Council No 23, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v Center Line, 91 Mich App 337, 342 ; 283 NW2d 741 (1979).

11982–1982

Statutes the citing opinions construe

MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2833 (3) MI § Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1405 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TX 125 (1973–2026) NY 35 (1906–2021) CA 27 (1923–2024) IL 25 (1934–2021) FL 20 (1931–2013) OH 16 (1939–2026) CT 15 (1966–2022) MO 13 (1960–2017) LA 11 (1982–2017) GA 11 (1943–2020) NJ 10 (1962–2018) MA 10 (1957–2014) PA 10 (1973–2023) MS 10 (1994–2026) CO 9 (1971–2026) IN 9 (1986–2020) MI 8 (1982–2023) IA 7 (1966–2026) MN 6 (1956–2007) AL 6 (1916–2016) NC 6 (1992–2013) OR 6 (1975–2022) WI 6 (1977–2024) WV 5 (1992–2010) MD 5 (1931–2019) AZ 5 (1947–2023) KY 4 (1926–1986) OK 4 (2000–2014) TN 4 (1997–2026) NE 4 (1958–2020) VT 4 (1984–2012) ID 4 (1932–2023) VA 4 (1997–2021) ND 3 (1977–1983) WA 3 (2018–2024) KS 3 (2005–2022) NM 3 (1965–2020) DE 3 (2010–2013) ME 3 (1990–2023) DC 3 (1995–2023) SC 2 (1964–2016) AR 2 (1984–2010) MT 2 (1934–1980) AK 2 (1985–2009) HI 2 (2005–2007)

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