8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. United States Gypsum Co.green2 sentences2000The chain of cases cited in Gistover ultimately reveals the foundation for this oft repeated standard: United States v United States Gypsum Co, 333 US 364 ; 68 S Ct 525 ; 92 L Ed 746 *44 (1948). 15 There, the United States Supreme Court construed the “clearly erroneous” language in Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2000The chain of cases cited in Gistover ultimately reveals the foundation for this oft repeated standard: United States v United States Gypsum Co, 333 US 364 ; 68 S Ct 525 ; 92 L Ed 746 *44 (1948). 15 There, the United States Supreme Court construed the “clearly erroneous” language in Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Grand Haven Highwaygreen2 sentences1973Although having in mind the more formalized approach to eminent domain proceedings than previously permitted by our Supreme Court, we comprehend no reason for abandoning the oft-repeated principle: "that the determination of value in condemnation proceedings is not a matter of formula or artificial rules but of sound judgment and discretion based upon a consideration of all relevant facts in a particular case.” (Justice Kelly in In re Grand Haven Highway, 357 Mich 20, 28-29 ; 97 NW2d 748, 752 [1959]). 1973Although having in mind the more formalized approach to eminent domain proceedings than previously permitted by our Supreme Court, we comprehend no reason for abandoning the oft-repeated principle: "that the determination of value in condemnation proceedings is not a matter of formula or artificial rules but of sound judgment and discretion based upon a consideration of all relevant facts in a particular case.” (Justice Kelly in In re Grand Haven Highway, 357 Mich 20, 28-29 ; 97 NW2d 748, 752 [1959]). | 1 | 1 |
Cummins v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1970See Cummins v. People (1879), 42 Mich 142 ; People v. Kelly (1894), 99 Mich 82 ; People v. Guillett (1955), 342 Mich 1 ." Notwithstanding, we are constrained to remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. 1970See Cummins v. People (1879), 42 Mich 142 ; People v. Kelly (1894), 99 Mich 82 ; People v. Guillett (1955), 342 Mich 1 .” Notwithstanding, we are constrained to remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Evanston Y.M.C.A. Camp v. State Tax Commission
green
2 sentences2020Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used . . . .’ ”9 The Court of 6 Clam Lake Twp v Dep’t of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 500 Mich 362 , 372; 902 NW2d 293 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 Ally Fin Inc v State Treasurer, 502 Mich 484, 493 ; 918 NW2d 662 (2018). 8 See, e.g., Evanston YMCA Camp v State Tax Comm, 369 Mich 1, 7 ; 118 NW2d 818 (1962). 9 Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142, 148-149 ; 33 NW2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed), § 672, p 1403. 4 App 2020Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used . . . .’ ”9 The Court of 6 Clam Lake Twp v Dep’t of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 500 Mich 362 , 372; 902 NW2d 293 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 Ally Fin Inc v State Treasurer, 502 Mich 484, 493 ; 918 NW2d 662 (2018). 8 See, e.g., Evanston YMCA Camp v State Tax Comm, 369 Mich 1, 7 ; 118 NW2d 818 (1962). 9 Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142, 148-149 ; 33 NW2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed), § 672, p 1403. 4 App | 3 | 1977–2020 |
City of Detroit v. Detroit Commercial College
green
2 sentences2020Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used . . . .’ ”9 The Court of 6 Clam Lake Twp v Dep’t of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 500 Mich 362 , 372; 902 NW2d 293 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 Ally Fin Inc v State Treasurer, 502 Mich 484, 493 ; 918 NW2d 662 (2018). 8 See, e.g., Evanston YMCA Camp v State Tax Comm, 369 Mich 1, 7 ; 118 NW2d 818 (1962). 9 Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142, 148-149 ; 33 NW2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed), § 672, p 1403. 4 App 2020Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used . . . .’ ”9 The Court of 6 Clam Lake Twp v Dep’t of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 500 Mich 362 , 372; 902 NW2d 293 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 Ally Fin Inc v State Treasurer, 502 Mich 484, 493 ; 918 NW2d 662 (2018). 8 See, e.g., Evanston YMCA Camp v State Tax Comm, 369 Mich 1, 7 ; 118 NW2d 818 (1962). 9 Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142, 148-149 ; 33 NW2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed), § 672, p 1403. 4 App | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Santander Consumer USA Inc v. State Treasurer
green
2 sentences2020Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used . . . .’ ”9 The Court of 6 Clam Lake Twp v Dep’t of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 500 Mich 362 , 372; 902 NW2d 293 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 Ally Fin Inc v State Treasurer, 502 Mich 484, 493 ; 918 NW2d 662 (2018). 8 See, e.g., Evanston YMCA Camp v State Tax Comm, 369 Mich 1, 7 ; 118 NW2d 818 (1962). 9 Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142, 148-149 ; 33 NW2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed), § 672, p 1403. 4 App 2020Such an intention must be expressed in clear and unmistakable terms, or must appear by necessary implication from the language used . . . .’ ”9 The Court of 6 Clam Lake Twp v Dep’t of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs, 500 Mich 362 , 372; 902 NW2d 293 (2017) (quotation marks and citations omitted). 7 Ally Fin Inc v State Treasurer, 502 Mich 484, 493 ; 918 NW2d 662 (2018). 8 See, e.g., Evanston YMCA Camp v State Tax Comm, 369 Mich 1, 7 ; 118 NW2d 818 (1962). 9 Detroit v Detroit Commercial College, 322 Mich 142, 148-149 ; 33 NW2d 737 (1948), quoting 2 Cooley, Taxation (4th ed), § 672, p 1403. 4 App | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Hiltz v. Phil's Quality Market
green
2 sentences2019This is consistent with the oft-repeated principle that the WDCA does not authorize double compensation to an injured employee, Reidenbach v Kalamazoo, __ Mich App __, __; __ NW2d __ (2019) (Docket No. 340863), slip op at 4, because double recovery by an employee “is repugnant to the very principles of workers’ compensation,” Hiltz v Phil’s Quality Market, 417 Mich 335, 350 ; 337 NW2d 237 (1983). 2019This is consistent with the oft-repeated principle that the WDCA does not authorize double compensation to an injured employee, Reidenbach v Kalamazoo, __ Mich App __, __; __ NW2d __ (2019) (Docket No. 340863), slip op at 4, because double recovery by an employee “is repugnant to the very principles of workers’ compensation,” Hiltz v Phil’s Quality Market, 417 Mich 335, 350 ; 337 NW2d 237 (1983). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co.
green
2 sentences2008No portion of our opinion conflicts with the oft-repeated principle, first articulated in Jackson , that “[t]he mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id. at 350 . 2008No portion of our opinion conflicts with the oft-repeated principle, first articulated in Jackson , that "[t]he mere fact that a business is subject to state regulation does not by itself convert its action into that of the State for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment." Id. at 350 , 95 S.Ct. 449 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
People v. Pate
green
2 sentences1970(Emphasis supplied.) Since the sentence imposed was within the limits of the statute, we are bound by the oft-repeated rule expressed in People v. Pate (1965), 2 Mich App 66 , 68: "When a sentence is within the maximum provided by statute, the trial court has wide discretion and an appellate court does not have supervisory control *61 over the punishment. 1970(Emphasis supplied.) Since the sentence imposed was within the limits of the statute, we are bound by the oft-repeated rule expressed in People v. Pate (1965), 2 Mich App 66 , 68: “When a sentence is within the maximum provided by statute, the trial court has wide discretion and an appellate court does not have supervisory control over the punishment. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Kelly
neutral
2 sentences1970See Cummins v. People (1879), 42 Mich 142 ; People v. Kelly (1894), 99 Mich 82 ; People v. Guillett (1955), 342 Mich 1 ." Notwithstanding, we are constrained to remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. 1970See Cummins v. People (1879), 42 Mich 142 ; People v. Kelly (1894), 99 Mich 82 ; People v. Guillett (1955), 342 Mich 1 .” Notwithstanding, we are constrained to remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
People v. Guillett
green
2 sentences1970See Cummins v. People (1879), 42 Mich 142 ; People v. Kelly (1894), 99 Mich 82 ; People v. Guillett (1955), 342 Mich 1 ." Notwithstanding, we are constrained to remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. 1970See Cummins v. People (1879), 42 Mich 142 ; People v. Kelly (1894), 99 Mich 82 ; People v. Guillett (1955), 342 Mich 1 .” Notwithstanding, we are constrained to remand this case to the trial court for resentencing. | 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.